Mark at the Movies: Kingsman - The Secret Service

Plot: In two opening scenes, we see two British government agents dispatched in two separate incidents, one heroically and one horrifically. The film then sets about on two tracks - one follows the recruitment and training of two new agents, the other a larger story about a megalomaniac tech genius out to wipe most of humanity from the face of the Earth. But hey, it's okay because he's got a good motive - he's trying to cure climate change issues. Global warming is likened to a body's fever, which is only a symptom of the illness - the underlying virus. He sees humanity as that virus. In fact, in one scene the bad guy compares himself and his scheme to God and Noah saving the Earth by wiping out the rest of the population. Into both of these storylines comes our hero - Harry Hart (codename: Galahad, all the agents have Camelot aliases) - who sets out to redeem a mistake that got the first agent above killed (by sponsoring his son - "Eggsy" - as a possible new replacement agent) and when he's not encouraging Eggsy, he's investigating the circumstances surrounding the second agent's death, which will lead him to cross paths with Valentine the Villain. One key plot point is that Valentine insures the loyalty of his accomplices by implanting them with a microchip that causes their heads to explode should they betray him.

Players: Colin Firth is nearly pitch-perfect as the Mr. Darcy-like Galahad, Samuel L. Jackson plays Valentine with whimsy, a lisp, and an unsettled stomach around bloodshed. Hardly the picture of evil you'd expect, which makes his plans all the more chilling. Taron Egerton, a fairly new Hollywood face, portrays Gary "Eggsy" Unwin, the son of the heroic Kingsman agent, who grew up in a rough neighborhood and is hardly the clean cut high class social elite type of trainee against whom he competes. Sofia Boutella, a former dancer with this her first big film, gets quite a bit of screen time as Valentine's chief henchperson, Gazelle. From the calf down, her legs and feet have been replaced with razor-sharp prosthetics which she wields to deadly (and quite graphic) precision. Mark Strong ("Merlin") is on hand as the Kingsman's tech expert, logistics expert, training expert, pilot, and man Friday. He acquits himself well in the role. Michael Caine brings his respectable skills to a smaller part as the head of the Kingsman Agency - "Arthur," of course - and clearly thinks little of young Eggsy's effort to qualify. Finally, an unrecognizable Mark Hamill has a brief early role as Professor Arnold, whom Valentine relies upon for climate change information.

Pilot: The film was directed by Matthew Vaughn, who has an X-Men movie and both "Kick Ass" movies to his credit and he is also helming the reboot of the Fantastic Four series. So, lots of experience in directing real life versions of comic book characters and stories. Kingsman: The Secret Service also began life as a comic book. There is, at the bottom of all the blood, mayhem, and in-your-face gore a decent message to the movie (see below), but I just cannot get past some of the directing choices he made. Here's hoping the FF reboot due out in August fares better.

Point: The film takes pains to express the thought, "Manners Maketh Man." This phrase was originally written by William Horman - an English Prep School Master in the late 1400s and early 1500s - in his book, Vulgaria, which was mainly Latin translations of common ("vulgar" would have been the word then) English phrases. The thought expresses an attitude of civility, respect, honor, and chivalry to which all men should aspire, and which Horman taught. And, in the end, that is the journey of transformation that "Eggsy" makes, though it is clear he came from good, honest, loyal and compassionate stock in the first place. So, like all good films, a principal character has his heart and life changed by the events of the film. That much, at least, they got right.

Particulars: The film starts out feeling very much like a parody of the "gentleman spy" popular during Sean Connery's early years as James Bond (and, indeed, that's the way the previews and the movie poster above spin it), but when a man's body is split in two - *vertically* - and you watch one half begin to slide away from the other you realize the movie has much more in common with the graphic violence, killing, maiming, bloodletting, and gore of The Walking Dead. At least in that show you know the zombies are dead already. Not so here. Some of the violence and mayhem you could call "stylized" - especially at the end of the movie when Valentine's implants are triggered - and some is clearly and intentionally "over the top"  (Monty Python's Black Knight scene comes to mind) but there is so much of it and it is so often shoved in your face that you could, quite literally, gag on it. In fact, one man in the film does. Directly at the camera. There is one extended and traumatically brutal scene in a church, where a congregation is shot, impaled, bludgeoned, axed, stabbed, and otherwise murdered. We're allowed to see the congregation (as a stand-in) for Fred Phelphs' Westboro Baptist Church, filled with hate, prejudice, and racism - but that simply does not justify the carnage Vaughn chose to spend precious minutes of his movie upon. And - I was just talking about this with a friend the other day - there is a heavily-influenced European sensibility and comfort with cursing, profanity, and crudities. The "F-Bomb" is dropped more than 110 times! In a 129-minute movie (less 9 minutes for the closing/opening credits), that's nearly once every 60 seconds. And finally, at the end of the movie, a captive woman who promises an agent anal sex if he frees her and saves the world is seen rolling over, revealing her bare backside.

Raymond's Rating: Out of four stars, I give this film ... one-half of one star. And only because I have to give it something. If you want to wake up feeling good about yourself in the morning, stay home. As I told my wife, my brain is still cowering in the corner, hours after witnessing it.

+++

Mark's Musings is published on an occasional basis but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. 1 Star=A Waste of Time; 2 Stars=Average to Poor; 3 Stars=Good and Possibly Quite Good; 4 Stars=Worth full price. 'Nuff said.

Mark at the Movies: The Judge

Robert Downey, Jr. and Robert Duvall

Plot: Hank Palmer (Downey Jr.), a highly successful if decidedly amoral defense attorney and estranged son of Judge Joseph Palmer, returns from the big city to his small town roots when his mother passes away. There he must deal with an angry and unforgiving father (Duvall) as well as his two brothers, who have their own history with Hank. Intending to stay just the one night for the funeral, his time at home is extended when his father is accused of murder the next morning. The balance of the movie is a riveting mix of trial testimony, dysfunctional family dynamics, and back stories that ultimately portray a deep story of forgiveness and family.

Players: Robert Downey, Jr. plumbs familiar character ground as Hank. Robert Duvall is his usual gem as the titular Judge. Vincent D'Onofrio plays brother Glen with a quiet pain and grace. Vera Farmiga is Hank's old flame, Samantha Powell, now owner of a local tavern. Jeremy Strong gives an understated performance (and serves as mild comic relief) as Hank's mentally-challenged brother, Dale. Billy Bob Thornton is on hand in his slick corporate guise as the prosecuting attorney, with Ken Howard as the judge presiding over the murder trial and Emma Trembley is Hank's daughter, Lauren. Finally, Dax Shepard also lends some light comedy as naive and part-time attorney C.P. Kennedy.

Pilot: David Dobkin directed and co-wrote the story with main screenwriter Nick Schenk. Schenk was also the main writer of Gran Torino, so he is experienced at writing complicated drama and relationships. Dobkin previously directed Wedding Crashers, The Change-Up, and Shanghai Knights, all comedies and action comedies. This appears to be his first effort at helming a straight-up drama.

Performance: The thing that stands out right away is that Robert Downey, Jr. is either completely incapable of portraying a "Joe Everyday" character, or is brilliantly using his well-known (and well-worn) cinema persona of a rich, smart, compassionate, snarky and often condescending jerk and making it work in a real-world setting (as opposed to the Marvel or Arthur Conan Doyle Universes). This is a Robert Downey, Jr. we all know and, mostly, love. It works in counterpoint to the small Midwest town (a fictional Carlinville, Indiana) in which the movie is set, but it was hardly breaking new ground for the actor. Duvall, on the other hand, has gotten crusty old codgers down to a "t" and while his, too, is a character we've seen before, he plays it with such integrity and nuance that it's like seeing an old friend. The heart of the movie is the relationship between these two and in the end, you respect them both. This is not an action movie, it is an actor's movie.

Point: I very nearly felt that this movie was a complicated and mixed retelling of the Gospel's Prodigal Son story, if the bitter brother who stayed home and the forgiving father traded places. In the end, it is a movie and a message that is life-affirming, family strong (but not family-friendly), and reminds us that no matter how far we go, there's always a place called home, filled with the people who know us and love us best.

Particulars: The film earns its "R" rating through its language - including more than two dozen "f-bombs" - with a liberal use of vulgarities and reflects a people who don't spend much time in church. There is one quite uncomfortable scene in which Hank is helping his father deal with the after-effects of a medical treatment, and it's not pretty. Both Hank and his second, C.P. Kennedy, throw up on the courtroom lawn several times before entering. And while sex is talked about and a couple of frank (but not graphic) makeout sessions occur, there is no nudity.

Raymond's Rating: I give The Judge three out of four stars. If the language had been toned down even a little, and had Downey produced a character other than an angry and petulant Tony Stark, I would have gone the whole four. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, it's a long film but there was so much story to be told - all of it intricate to understanding the relationships involved - that I didn't mind.

+++

Mark's Musings is published on an occasional basis but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. "I choose you." You'll see.

Mark at the Movies: Captain America - The Winter Soldier

Full disclosure: I collected Marvel Comics when I was younger.

Well, not *that* much younger. I was a college student, okay? Collected for years. Sold them all for $500 when I was raising money to take my wife with me to San Juan, Puerto Rico, for a conference. But that's another story.

When I first began reading comics seriously (rather, let's say, "as an adult") I sampled both Marvel and DC, which were and pretty much still are the two mainstream production companies. After a very short time, I realized that there was a fundamental difference between the two approaches to comic storytelling. DC was all about action and art. The plot and backstory of the titular hero was secondary to the flow of the pages.

Marvel, on the other hand, would routinely spend a page (and often several) on our costumed hero's personal life. Marvel was all about character development. Not just the "what" and "how" of our heroes and villains, but the "why" was nearly always included. Marvel Comics were driven by the deeper elements of a story, and that's what appealed to me and why they received the bulk of my dollars.

Now, having said all that as preface, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, is a movie that would make DC proud. You'll find very little in the way of character development or, indeed, much of a humanizing element here at all. What you will find is non-stop storytelling, action scenes, plot twists galore, and a smattering of wisecracking humor. You will be engaged and most likely enthralled from the beginning until the very last credit rolls. You will get your money's worth.

I walked away from this film marveling - no pun intended - at the overarching achievement of creating the Marvel Universe in cinematic version and of how tightly every single movie (and even the television series) is dovetailing one with another.

I cannot use my usual review format here for fear of giving too much of the film away. Let's just say that any solid familiarity with the Steve Rogers/Captain America story and history will serve you well to understand some deeper character connections being made. Plus you'll get a glimpse of Wanda and Pietro, two characters who will eventually become ... well, you'll see.

The bulk of the screen time is shared between Chris Evans (Captain America) and Scarlett Johansson (The Black Widow). Samuel L. Jackson has the largest role he has played to date with his Nick Fury character. And you know Marvel's stature has come up in the world when you can sign Robert Redford to be in your film.

Captain America will return for his third solo adventure in May, 2016. In the meantime, Marvel Comics lovers will have another Amazing Spiderman with Andrew Garfield in the lead role, an upcoming X-Men film that will combine the "First Class" cast with the older cast, and a "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie which, while not necessarily set in the Marvel Universe we have seen so far, is still a part of it but - to paraphrase a Star Wars line - takes place in a galaxy far, far, away.

And next year we will have our Avengers sequel in "The Age of Ultron." But for now, go see Captain America and try to gather all the threads woven into this story. I bet it'll take you two hands.

+++++

Mark's Musings is published on a semi-periodical basis that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. Facebook link is over there to the right. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761.  As you watch, remember that Cap was sweet on Peggy Carter in the first movie. This sequel introduces us to Sharon, known by Cap simply as "Neighbor."

Mark at the Movies: The Lone Ranger

Plot: Notorious outlaw Butch Cavendish is being transported to Colby, Texas, for execution. His gang breaks him out of the train after District Attorney John Reid stops the Indian, Tonto, from killing Cavendish for his own reasons. Reid then joins up with his brother, Dan, is deputized as a Texas Ranger, and the posse sets off after Cavendish, only to be ambushed. Miraculously, John Reid survives with the help of Tonto, and the two once again set out after Cavendish, only to learn that the evil they chase goes higher than they can imagine, and John Reid is the lone ranger left to fight that battle. Along the way we also learn Tonto's back story and why he is also after Cavendish. And it's all done in flashback, through a conversation a young lad has with the aged Tonto at a carnival in San Francisco.

Players: This is really Johnny Depp's movie, and he gets top billing here as Tonto. Armie Hammer (and yes, that is his real name) portrays John Reid/Lone Ranger with a fairly complex blend of innocence, goofiness, and righteous wrath. William Fichtner is the main bad guy and known cannibal, Butch Cavendish. Oscar-nominated Tom Wilkinson is Latham Cole, the mayor and chief mover/shaker in the town of Colby. English actress Ruth Wilson plays Dan's wife Rebecca and, we learn, was a one-time flame of John's in their younger years. Helena Bonham Carter is Red Harrington, the local cathouse proprietor with a surprise in her artificial leg. James Badge Dale is the ernest lawman Dan Reid and young Bryant Prince makes his big screen debut as Danny, Rebecca and Dan's son.

Pilot: Gore Verbinski directed this action-comedy movie and he is no stranger to directing Johnny Depp, having helmed all three Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, as well as the animated film, Rango. Here, you get the sense that he was going for the "Pirates" blend of action, whimsy, and danger. He succeeded, but on a somewhat smaller scale.

Performance: Imagine Captain Jack Sparrow as a Comanche Indian, and you'll have a good start at understanding how this film plays out. "Tonto" in Spanish means "fool," and the writers went with that for this reboot, rather than the stalwart, forthright, loyal Tonto played by Jay Silverheels in the television series. The fact that it was told in flashback style was unique, and Verbinski did some clever things with that convention. But when you try to blend such a big mix of summer blockbuster action, humor, pathos, danger, and still try to make it a buddy movie, that's one too many tightropes to walk and sometimes the film falls too deeply into one or the other of those nets. Depp's dimwitted "I'm really a genius" act has grown old for me, but the other actors acquitted themselves just fine; especially Hammer. And by the end of the movie, I was a big fan of the horse.

Point: This is a pretty straight-forward good versus evil movie. It's really a reboot/re-origin story of how the idealistic John Reid turns into the realistic, if you will, Lone Ranger. There is much talk of the "Spirit World" here, and traditional Hollywood Christian stereotypes abound, much to my chagrin. The Christians in the film are portrayed as hypocritical prejudiced bigots and the one genuinely theological prayer is issued from the lips of a villain.

Particulars: The body count is really quite high in this film, but most all of it is bloodless, though the sound effects and reactions of those shot by bullets or arrows are enhanced and awfully realistic. There is one particularly gruesome scene, where Cavendish stabs into a dying man and eats his heart, though it is shown off-camera or in silhouette. In another scene scorpions are seen crawling on the faces of two men trapped in sand. There is a scene in the local house of prostitution where cleavage abounds freely, but not off-puttingly so. I did not find the language particularly objectionable, either.

Raymond's Rating: I give The Lone Ranger two out of four stars. It passed my entertainment test, in that not once did I feel the urge to check my watch, so there is that. But the movie ran two-and-a-half hours, which is closer to three with previews and projection equipment shorts and safety/legal/cell phone reminders and by the time the lights came up, I was definitely ready to leave. The film has no defining climactic moment, you don't really get to see justice delivered to the vilest of the villains, and while the whole thing was nice enough, it left me wanting ... something ... something more. I wish I could say what.

+++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. Hi-yo, Silver! Away!

Mark at the Movies: Monsters University

Plot: Meet Mike Wazowski and James P. "Sully" Sullivan before they became fast friends. See them in a college setting, learning how to scare small human children and thus create the power that their world uses for energy in this Disney/Pixar prequel. Anyone who has spent time on a college campus will recognize the stereotypes here, represented by fraternities and sororities - the jocks, the hipster girls, the goth outcasts, and of course, the losers and nerds. Mike and Sully manage to get themselves expelled from the Scare Program early in the film, but a daring bet with the school's Headmaster will get them back into the program if their team wins the "Scare Games." A loss, however, will result in their expulsion from the school all together. Those Scare Games become the central piece of the film, and are the chief vehicle for our characters to grow and come to know one another, quirks, faults, and all.

Players: Billy Crystal and John Goodman return to voice Big Eye Mike and Big Furry Sully. Steve Buscemi is also back as the voice of Randy, the disappearing chameleon-like monster. Helen Mirren does a bang-up job as the stern voice of Dean Hardscrabble, the school's headmaster. Comic actors Sean Hayes and Dave Foley serve as two-headed Terri/Terry Perry. The respected Alfred Molina plays a small role as Professor Knight, and Nathan Fillion takes a turn as BMOC (Big Monster On Campus) as Johnny Worthington. Other well-known actors have bit parts: Bonnie Hunt, John Krasinski, Joel Murray, Julia Sweeney, Bill Hader and of course, it wouldn't be a Pixar movie if John Ratzenberger didn't stick his characteristic voice in.

Pilot: Dan Scanlan directed, conceived the story, and contributed to the screenplay. He's written for other Pixar movies (most notably Cars) and has directed some of their shorts, as well as a small budget "mockumentary" film called Tracy done four years ago. This was his first big budget directing job.

Performance: In many ways, the story reminded me of the 1984 comedy, Revenge of the Nerds. Mike and Sully find themselves pledged to Oozma Kappa (their slogan: "We're OK!"), a collection of social outcasts and misfits, and - as good stories often do - we get to see their evolution into the characters we enjoyed in the first Monsters movie. And not just the leads, but the rest of their fraternity brethren, as well. But the road is hardly smooth, and the writers and actors have done a very credible job here in providing obstacles and ways to overcome them. There's a very nice bit at the end of the film bridging the gap between the college years and the "BFF" duo we see in the original Monsters, Inc. And do stay through the credits, as there is a brief scene at the end, though it's likely to just leave you a little sad.

Point: Friendship. Living up to your parents expectations. Telling the truth. Letting your natural talents lead you to happiness. Overcoming your natural weaknesses with the help of friends. These are all themes touched on or explored in depth within the context of the story.

Particulars: Rated G, there is nothing objectionable here. Small children may find Dean Hardscrabble's character somewhat frightening, and certainly intimidating. But here even the bad guys are lovable.

Raymond's Rating: I'm going with two-and-a-half stars (out of four) on this prequel. While there were a tremendous amount of creative touches throughout and it was definitely an enjoyable experience, the story just didn't feel terribly original for me and unlike the first film, there were only a couple of spots where I laughed right out loud. Let's put it this way: it's a great film at matinee pricing.

+++++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. The Scare Games. Let's call them a Monster Dash.

Mark at the Movies: Man of Steel

Superman has a long and storied run on both television and in movies. Created in 1933 by Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster while they were both in high school, his story was sold to DC Comics in 1938 and the rest, as they say, is history.

His first televised appeareance, according to the Internet Movie Database, was in the 1952 show Adventures of Superman where he was portrayed by George Reeves. He turned up for the first time in a cinematic production in 1978, portrayed by Christopher Reeve (no relation) who filled the role for a total of four movies through 1987, each one successively worse than its predecessor. They were so bad that the Man of Steel disappeared from Hollywood for half a decade, finally coming full circle as a fairly successful television show in 1993 under the title Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman with Teri Hatcher and Dean Cain in the lead roles. The show enjoyed a four-year run. It's success sparked an animated cartoon that began in 1996 and also ran for four seasons. 

And then mild-mannered Clark Kent (Superman's alter ego) went underground for another five years when the movie franchise underwent what has come to be known as a "reboot" with the film, Superman Returns in 2006, starring Brandon Routh. It built on the storylines in the first set of movies and perhaps for that reason, lost money and Superman would not return again.

Until this year, when the story was given a re-reboot, this one under the title, Man of Steel. If nothing else, filmmaking technology and computer-generated imagery (CGI) have been much updated so that this movie could be more "super" than any of its ancestors.

Plot: As anyone who hasn't lived under a rock or off the grid over the past 70 years should know by now, Krypton is a dying planet of beings much farther along the scientific path than we humans. Too late to save their world, in this version not only is Kal-El (Superman's Kryptonian name) packed up and shipped off to Earth, but he also carries with him on the trip the entire genetic future of Krypton in a "codex," which is a fancy (and archaic) way of saying database. And truth to tell, it's not an *entirely* accurate use of the term, but I shan't nit-pick. The Kryptonian military general - Zod - who was attempting to stage a planetary coup and in some fashion save Krypton, is exiled to the Phantom Zone for his crimes and yet vows to track down Kal-El and retrieve the codex, saving his people's future. Superman's early years are then depicted and show us his serving around the world in an itinerant laborer sort of fashion, coming to the rescue whenever tragedy occurs, and this forces him to move on to the next gig. We see bits of his childhood in well done flashback scenes. Enter Lois Lane, Daily Planet reporter, who embeds herself with a military excavation at the south pole where some kind of space vessel has been discovered, frozen in the ice for almost 20,000 years. She spies Superman (in yet another itinerant disguise) attempting to quietly slip away and explore the vessel himself, and follows. That decision entwines her fate and future with his as she becomes bound and determined to discover his secrets. On the ship, Superman finally learns his true identity and flies it away to the other pole, but doing so activates a distress beacon that alerts Zod - who escaped from the Phantom Zone when Krypton exploded - to his whereabouts. An epic confrontation that would be an insurance agent's nightmare follows as Earth, Superman, and all of mankind's fate hangs in the balance. (Whew! Long plot - but the movie is nearly two-and-a-half hours long.)

Players: Henry Cavill portrays this version of Superman (you may know him best from The Tudors television series), the always watchable Amy Adams is the indomitable and intrepid Lois Lane, Michael Shannon grinds through his role as Zod with lust and vigor, and a long list of other "A" actors round out the cast in smaller roles. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane play Superman's foster parents, Laurence Fishburne serves as Perry White, Lois' editor, Russell Crowe does double duty as Jor-El, Superman's father and the AI "consciousness" of his father later, and both Christopher Meloni (from the Law and Order TV series) and Richard Schiff (most well known for his work as Toby on The West Wing) are given small but pivotal roles. German actress Antje Traue is given a full introduction to American audiences as the right-hand of General Zod, Faora-UI and is both menacing and lovely.

Pilot: The movie is directed by Zack Snyder who also helmed 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. He has already been announced as coming back to direct Man of Steel 2, and considering that Christopher Nolan (of the Batman trilogy of films) shares a co-writing credit on the story, I think we're probably due for another trilogy here.

Performance: This movie falls straight into the category of rollicking yarn. There are just enough lulls with character exposition and backstory to make the action scenes pop. My one note of distraction while watching was that there was, perhaps, too much action. When you're talking about a character called "Superman" - and there's a clever bit with Lois about the symbol on his chest - there's a tendency to make everything bigger. And then what do you do for a climax? Make it even bigger still. And longer. The film finally reaches a point where it's just too much and you begin to be numbed by it all. But that was a minor flaw. There are several quick bits during the climactic battle scene that Snyder fits in: a worksite with a sign displaying "106 days without an accident" is hit and the 1 and 6 fall off. In another shot, a tanker with "LexCorp" emblazoned on the side is destroyed, a millisecond homage to nemesis Lex Luthor. The movie ends with Superman set up in his Clark Kent identity, newly-hired at the Daily Planet newspaper. The final two lines of dialogue are a near-perfect ending for the film, leaving things fine as a stand-alone movie, but also ripe for the sequel.

Point: Several times throughout the movie we are asked what mankind would do if we found out there was an alien living among us, and he was a far superior being. Would we panic? Would we accept him as one of our own? Would we look to him as hero and savior or would we shun and fear him for his differences? The film shows that struggle and the conclusion is drawn by one character for us all when he says, "this man is not our enemy." I could spend some time drawing parallels between Superman and Christ, as well as critical differences, but that's for another post. There is one scene where Superman asks a local priest for advice. In the end, the priest offers, "Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first. The trust comes later." I was glad the writers nailed that one.

Particulars: I found nothing truly objectionable here. There are hints of cleavage, a lingering kiss, a quick scene of sexual harassment, several violent yet mostly bloodless deaths, and a few uses of "ass" and "dick" in conjunction with other words to create insults.

Raymond's Rating: I'll give this film a solid three stars. The action goes on too long, and Superman's ultimate solution to the menace is a choice I'm not sure he ever would have made in the comic mythology, but as summer blockbusters go, this one is right up there.

+++++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. Up, up, and away!

Mark at the Movies: After Earth

Plot:  The basic premise starts with the fact that we "ruined" the earth and humanity left the planet en masse 1,000 years ago and settled on a new world: Nova Prime. There we discovered that we were not alone; a new fearsome predator dubbed an "Ursa" was discovered. The beast is a huge, spidery thing with no eyes. It tracks its prey by smelling the pheromones given off by its terrified victim(s). Cypher Raige (Will Smith) has learned how to control his fear and thus become invisible to the creatures, a process that was called "ghosting." His prowess in helping humanity quell this menace has risen him to the rank of General in the Rangers and garnered him unprecedented respect and loyalty among the troops. But his dedication to this military effort has left him with a family that is distant and his relationship with his son, who is in training to become a Ranger as well, is growing cold. Recognizing this fact - with the help of his still-loving wife - he takes his son with him on one final training mission before his planned retirement. Their ship crash lands on ancient earth and breaks into two pieces. The only two survivors are the General and his son, Kitai Rage (Jaden Smith). Their distress beacon is damaged, but their hope is a working one will be found in the tail section, over 60 miles away from their current position. The General, however, sustained two badly broken legs in the crash and their only hope for survival lies in the ability of his son to travel to the tail section, then find and fire the distress beacon. His father cannot provide any physical aid, but as he strives to survive his injuries he can stay in contact with his son visually and digitally as he makes his way through the dangerous terrain. To add another layer of menace to an already perilous journey, the ship had carried an Ursa on it as part of the training mission, and not only did it survive the crash, it escaped into the wild.

Players: Look at the image above; note that Jaden Smith is the first face you see. That's because he is the actual star of the film, taking the lion's share of the screen time. Will Smith has a commanding presence in the movie as General Cypher Raige, but the story is of his son Kitai coming into his own. 90% of the movie features just these two players. Sophie Okonedo portrays the understanding-yet-firm wife and mother, Faia (pronounced Fie-ee-ah). Zoe Isabella Kravitz portrays Kitai's sister, Senshi, and carries a pivotal piece of the story with her role. All the other actors in the film have mere cameo roles to move the story along.

Performance: Jaden Smith has two previous "well-known" roles. The first was in The Pursuit of

Happyness and he again played his father's son. At that age, he was simply cute and precocious and not a lot of acting chops were expected from him. His next starring turn was in the remake of The Karate Kid and Jackie Chan was along to bear the weight of the dramatics. Smith was fine, but it was a role where not a great deal of range was expected. Here, the story relies almost solely on Jaden's maturing acting ability, and while he shines in spots, I was underwhelmed with his overall performance. The other performance to be taken into account here is that of M. Night Shyamalan (pronounced Shuh-yeah-mah-lahn), a director who has endured a meteoric rise (after The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and Signs) and then a gigantic collapse after a string of critical and financial failures (The Village, Lady in the Water, The Happening, and especially The Last Airbender). Here he is directing one of the few films that he didn't write, though he does share co-writing credit. The story is Will Smith's, but the dialogue was mostly written by Gary Whitta. The film does not carry any of Shyamalan's twisty endings that change the nature of everything you've just seen but instead is told in a fairly straightforward manner. This is a welcome change and the film benefits from it.

Point: There are several layers and undertones at work here. The obvious message was the ecological one. We "ruined" the earth. The next message strongly present was the philosophical one, engendered by the film's catchphrase: "Danger is real. Fear is a choice." Early in the movie Will Smith explains this concept in some detail, including some very worthwhile words about the worthlessness of fear and it being all about what hasn't happened yet. All we can do is live in the moment. Finally, the film is centrally a coming-of-age story and repairing the relationship between father and son. I have read that some saw Will Smith's Scientology beliefs coming out, but I saw nothing of that. Perhaps I am too uneducated. As a believer in Christ and a follower of The Way, the message of choosing to set fear aside (because we know who holds the future) was strongly appealing to me.

Particulars: There is no swearing in this film, and no violence so graphic as to be off-putting. There are moments of gruesomeness, and a few surprises that illicit shivers of sympathetic tension, but they are balanced by the occasional tender moment. You do see a few bloodied crash victims, and several bodies are impaled by the Ursa, but there is no gore.

Raymond's Rating: I give this film two-and-a-half stars, and would mildly recommend it as a movie worth watching. Kitai is given a line at the end that is the flick's one comic moment, and it is a good one.

+++++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. This film's working title was "1,000 Years A.E."

Mark at the Movies: Now You See Me

Back in the day during my film critique studies (in college), we were taught that the title of a movie is usually - though not always - indicative of a film's main theme, or is used to underscore the message of the movie. Here, with this picture, your mind immediately leaps to the rest of this phrase: "...now you don't." In fact, that is one of the key lines in an early scene.

What the title is trying to tell us, I believe, is that the movie's heart lies in misdirection --> what you don't see. And, indeed, that turns out to be the case.

Plot: Four magicians with diverse talents, working mostly in little known locales for whatever they can shake out from a crowd, are recruited to become "The Four Horsemen" by a mysterious benefactor and the next thing you know (a year later), they're playing Vegas. Turns out their public appearances come in three "acts" and the first is robbing a bank right there, live on stage (and in France, no less), with the help of an innocent audience member. The second act involves ripping off an insurance company (with an interesting twist), and the final performance includes stealing a huge safe loaded with cash. As soon as the first heist is performed, however, the FBI is called in (and even Interpol due to the French connection) and the group has also attracted the attention of a magic "debunker" and all three spend the remainder of the film chasing the quartet and being led a merry chase, indeed. About a third of the way through the film we are introduced to "The Eye," a secret cult of "true" magicians dedicated to taking from the rich and giving to the poor which is, in fact, what The Four Horsemen do in their first two acts. The movie is all about what happens next, and will they get away with it all, and why were they doing it in the first place?

Players: Jesse Eisenberg headlines the mostly well-known cast as lead magician J. Daniel Atlas and grinds through his scenes with a capital Smug. Mark Ruffalo plays the beleaguered and often dumbfounded FBI agent Dylan Rhodes, saddled with this no-win case. Woody Harrelson is mentalist Merritt McKinney who proves to be a skilled observationalist and owns a piercing stare. Isla Fisher portrays escape artist (and former stage aide to Atlas) Henley Reeves. The last of the quartet is Jack Wilder, acted by Dave Franco (the brother of James Franco). French actress Mélanie Laurent is re-introduced to American audiences (after her turn in "Inglorious Basterds") as Interpol detective Alma Dray and represents belief to Rhodes' skepticism. The always watchable Morgan Freeman is around to explain how some things were done as debunk artist Thaddeus Bradley, and Michael Caine is pretty much wasted here as insurance mogul and financier Arthur Tressler.

Performance: With so much plot ground to cover, the story must by default leave these characters' back stories practically untold, so it's difficult to work up much enthusiasm for anyone in the movie, except Ruffalo, who has the most screen time and always seems to come across as a sympathetic nice guy. The script does leave us with some questions that more or less cheat us of an honest ending, and sour the nature of a major character, but I can't fault the actors for this.

Point: There is no point to this movie. Nothing deep. No hidden meanings. Just a slick, captivating thrill ride with mostly unexpected twists throughout. The most honest line of dialogue is when Morgan Freeman utters, "When a magician says here's the magic (pointing with one hand), you can be sure the trick is actually being done elsewhere." Eisenberg utters several times throughout the film, "The closer you look, the less you'll see."

Particulars: I found nothing terribly objectionable here. There are no scary scenes, no bloody violence. It is rated PG-13 but I didn't even hear the one F-bomb these films are allowed, which was a relief. There were a few instances where God's name was added to "damn" that didn't need to happen, and "sh--" abounded throughout, of course. Early in the movie a young lady whips off her dress to reveal a pretty figure in lingerie and some mild innuendo follows, but nothing comes of it.

Raymond's Rating: Two stars. While the movie was impressive in its execution, there were too many characters, too much plot, and not enough meat in the story to sustain any kind of emotional connection to the film. I wonder how things would have played out had the revelation at the end of the film been delivered earlier, and if more reason had been given for Morgan Freeman's character to go through what he did at the end. After all was said and done, I found myself watching just to see what was going to happen next. Perhaps that's all I should expect from a summer flick.

+++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. Abracadabra.

Mark at the Movies - Star Trek 2: Into Darkness

Plot: A little girl is ill. A self-sacrificing act of sabotage is the price demanded for saving her and that kicks off what turns out to be a one-man war on Starfleet that leads the Enterprise and her crew into peril and a possible intergalactic war with the Klingons. But the film's main perpetrator will allow no obstacle to stand in his way of revenge, and Starfleet High Command is ready to welcome a war and between those two, Captain James Tiberius Kirk and the other characters we have come to know and love so well find themselves caught in the middle. The question comes down to "how do you protect Starfleet - even from itself?" The answer eventually becomes clear, but the body count is high and we are taken on an emotional roller coaster through the whole journey.

Players: All of the cast from the first film returns. Chris Pine is the young Jim Kirk, Zachary Quinto seems even more comfortable in the role of Spock, Karl Urban continues to chew up every scene he's in as the irascible Leonard McCoy, Simon Pegg is the ebullient Scotty, Zoe Saldana is Uhura, and both helmsmen: John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov are given more to do this film. Bruce Greenwood returns as Christopher Pike, and along for the ride on this trip are the much-discussed Benedict Cumberbatch - playing John Harrison, the villain of the piece - as well as Peter Weller in an important role, and Alice Eve, who provides insights at critical moments and takes on the job of being the film's "eye candy" for a few frames. There is a cameo from a special guest star, as well, but I won't give away that identity so as not to spoil your fun.

Performance: As I mentioned, it's an emotional roller coaster. The canon of the Star Trek universe is so familiar to so many that no time need be spent on each character's back story for us to understand the unique interplay of give and take, joke and jest, and point/counterpoint they immediately dive into with each other. It *is* an alternate timeline, so characters are allowed to deviate from the Star Trek norm. I was particularly impressed with the range Quinto explored within the narrow confines of Spock's Vulcan cold logic. Weller is comfortable in the role of a man wielding power and used to getting his own way. Urban is a delight to watch. Somewhere DeForest Kelley (the original McCoy) is smiling. Simon Pegg can no longer claim to play the only comedic relief in the cast, but his work as Scotty continues to be enjoyable, as well. And what can I say about Benedict Cumberbatch without giving away too much? He is not who he seems to be, and he effectively works both sides of the good and evil equation. He manages to walk that most delicate line of acting roles: he makes you feel for him while he's committing atrocities. While Chris Pine gets most of the screen time as Kirk, and his performance is spot-on and commendable, at the end of the film it was these other actors who stood out in my mind.

Point: What do you do to save your friends? What decisions do those in power have to make in order to propel a civilization forward? When do you ignore the rules to save those you care about? In the end, Star Trek Into Darkness reminds us of some important truths: do what's right, no matter what. Be loyal to those you love to the point of death and beyond. And even if you mess with the timeline, you'll eventually end up in the same place.

Particulars: Parents should be warned there is liberal use of the word that colloquially describes fecal matter. Scotty gets drunk (but really, don't we expect that of Scotty?). A human head is crushed off screen. Humanoids with entirely black eyes and painted faces are seen, which may prove to be a frightening image to small children.

Raymond's Rating: I am a self-professed "Trekkie," so take that into account when I say this was a fantastic film. My only quibble is with one scene involving a Tribble that ultimately telegraphs a key plot point later, and winds up taking much of the suspense of one of the film's most critical scenes away. It was the only unnecessary scene (as that plot point was set up in the very beginning of the film). Aside from that minor defect, I give this movie a full four stars. In the end, it's a brilliant retelling of a familiar story and well worth plunking down your dollars to see.

+++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761. Boldy go.

Mark at the Movies: Iron Man 3

PLOT: "The Mandarin," a madman patterned after Middle East terrorist leaders, is out to destroy America and seems to have a personal vendetta against the U.S. President. Meanwhile, millionaire industrialist (genius, philanthropist, etc.) Tony Stark is having trouble settling into a stable relationship with his long-time assistant, Pepper Potts (who now runs Stark Industries), beset by nightmares about his New York experience with The Avengers and prone to panic/anxiety attacks. When one of The Mandarin's attacks injure Tony's friend and one-time chauffeur Happy Hogan (played by Iron Man 1 director Jon Favreau), that's the last straw for Stark's stress levels and Tony calls out the Mandarin - giving out his home address, no less - and the battle is joined, but there are wheels turning within wheels here, and not everything will turn out or turn up the way it first appears.

Players: Nearly everyone from the Iron Man story returns - Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, even a cameo from Shaun Toub, who was in the very first Iron Man movie. Noticeably absent is Scarlett Johansson. This film also features Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Rebecca Hall, the aforementioned Mr. Favreau, and everyone's favorite computer assistant, Jarvis, voiced by Paul Bettany and given a somewhat larger role and personality here.

Performance: In an action movie, you don't look for great range or depth of character, and don't expect that here. Downey is still the quintessential Tony Stark, Cheadle provides solid foundational support as sidekick and yet stands on his own as both a character and an actor, and Paltrow is both sympathetic and strong as straight-arrow Pepper Potts, who knows Tony's strengths and weaknesses, and juggles them appropriately. The villains in the movie are, by and large, portrayed effectively enough that the audience feels happy when they receive their comeuppance.

Point: When the movie was all said and done, I came away with the feeling that the message was about the mistakes we make, how they come back to haunt us, and how we eventually learn from them. Tony dares to take steps he's never taken before, and seems to finally be at peace with both himself and the world. Taken as a whole, this trilogy journey about the creation of Iron Man to the resolution of Tony Stark, simply Man, has been a good one. While you are left wondering how it will be possible by the end of the movie, we are assured that Tony Stark will return. And yes, stay all the way through the end credits.

Particulars: Other websites are better at this than I, but personally I found nothing really objectionable about the film, in terms of language, violence, sexuality, or morality. The woman in the row behind us at the theater used worse language every time something unexpected happened on the screen.

Raymond's Rating: It's not four star material, but I would give it a solid three stars for entertainment. My acid test for movies is "did I or did I not feel the need to look at my watch?" With Iron Man 3, I didn't even think about the time until the end credits were rolling and my bladder was nagging at me. If this was 2013's first summer "blockbuster," it's going to be a good summer.

+++

Mark's Musings is published on a periodical basis - right now on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - but that may change without notice. Find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markmusings. This blog is considered to be a digital periodical publication and is filed as such with the U.S. Library of Congress; ISSN 2154-9761.