Captain America: Civil War

It's no secret that Superhero mash-ups are a big thing. Ever since six of Marvel's greatest had to band together to fight villains from another world in The Avengers, audiences have been craving more alliances between Superheroes. This year, it seems, Superheroes aren't getting along so well. We've had Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice which pitted two of DC's best known heroes against one another. Now Marvel's heroes, The Avengers, are being split down the middle and are fighting amongst each other in Captain America: Civil War (2016). The result is a highly enjoyable and, holding true to Captain America form, makes some interesting political commentary.

With many people fearing the actions of super heroes, the government decides to push for the Hero Registration Act, a law that limits a hero's actions. This results in a division in The Avengers. Iron Man stands with this Act, claiming that their actions must be kept in check otherwise cities will continue to be destroyed, but Captain America feels that saving the world is daring enough and that they cannot rely on the government to protect the world. This escalates into an all-out war between Team Iron Man; Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Vision (Paul Bettany), Black Widow Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), and Spider-Man (Tom Holland); and Team Captain America: Captain America (Chris Evans), Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) while a new villain emerges (Daniel Brühl).

While overall I liked The Avengers: Age of Ultron, it could have been better. Civil War was much more along the lines of what I had hoped for. Tons of Superhero action, incredible fight scenes, intermingling between super powered characters, clashes of personalities, interesting themes, etc. Civil War is first and foremost a sequel to Captian America: The Winter Soldier. It's a continuation of the story of Captain America and his old friend who was brainwashed and controlled by Hydra. The second story is the governments of the world putting a system of accountability on the Superheroes and the resulting conflict between our heroes. This second story is a natural side effect of the Captain America/Bucky Barnes story, so they are intertwined in very logical ways.

The hard part is to know who to cheer for. In The Avengers there was a really great, but short, fight scene early on between Thor and Iron-Man. It was amazing because these were both characters I loved and the fight was incredible, and I simply did not know who to root for. It wasn't until Captain America intervenes to breaks up the fight, which itself was amazing, that the two lowered their arms. The fight was creative, took advantage of and displayed each hero's respective powers and abilities, and was edge-of-your-seat exciting. You wanted to see them really lay into each other, but you didn't want either one to lose because you already like these characters. Civil War is pretty much a whole movie with fight scenes like that one. But it's so well written that you still don't know which team to side with. The conflict that arises from the Hero Registration Act makes a lot of sense. Neither side is wholly wrong, and if you, yourself, aren't flip-flopping between which team you'd be aligned with, you're just being unreasonably stubborn. Civil War is that well written. The major fight between sides is absolutely amazing, and again you don't want anyone to really get hurt, but you just can't help but get caught up in the action and see the very different personalities and superpowers clash in the most epic ways. Most of the heroes are in it for a short while, but they are just so fantastic. I love how Ant-Man keeps forgetting less super powered hero's names; he refers to Hawkeye as "arrow guy."

Holding true to Captain America tradition, Civil War makes some social and political commentary. It explores topics of the morality and justification of revenge, how much control the government should have over its citizens, the idea that law is not an indicator of morality and how many horrible things have been done to people that were perfectly legal, and the traumatic effects that war has on innocent bystanders and those who get caught in the crossfire. There were lots of people who died in the epic fight scenes we love so much in previous Marvel movies, and the natural consequences of those fight scenes are coming to fruition here. Normal people are becoming fearful of superheroes and what they are able to do, so a Hero Registration Act makes sense. But at the same time, Civil War explores the idea that while war is absolutely a terrible reality, it is sometimes necessary. Having people who are able to stop the evil actions of others is good. They save as many people as possible but often are not able to save everyone, which is truly regrettable. But are the rescuers at fault for not saving everyone? Would it have been better to let the enemy have its way and save no one at all? The human cost of "Collateral Damage" is explored respectfully here. It's a complicated set of topics that can be touchy issues. Civil War explores these topics without getting preachy or telling you what you should think, and does it with a safe Superhero metaphor over the top so as not to potentially offend. The themes explored in this movie are fascinating and make for a rich story.

Two new heroes are introduced in Civil War, we were teased with these new characters in the trailer. The first of which was Black Panther. Wow, this character was fantastic. He was complicated, compelling, interesting, and a fun addition to the movie. I truly have limited knowledge of this character from the Marvel comics, but I couldn't help but love him. He's scheduled to have his own movie early in 2018 and I am psyched about it now that I've seen Black Panther in action. The other is my all time personal favorite superhero, Spider-Man. This is the third actor to play Spider-Man and he's quite possibly my favorite. That's saying something because Tobey Maguire was pretty great and Andrew Garfield did a solid job as well. We don't get an origin story for Spider-Man this time, which is good. It would have taken too much time and we've already had the origin of Spider-Man, possibly one of the best known original stories in the Marvel universe depicted on the big screen twice in a relatively short amount of time between two Spider-Man film series. This Spider-Man is still in high school, is reluctant to join the fray because he's got a big math test to study for, he's a hilariously talkative and cracks jokes during fights (a signature component of the character), he's not yet confident in himself and is still mastering his newfound abilities, acts like a fanboy in front of all the established heroes, and comes up with ideas for taking down opponents from "old movies" like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Sony owned the movie rights to Spider-Man and since the character was an important component to Marvel's Civil War storyline, Disney had to negotiate rights to the character back from Sony so Spidey could be in the Civil War movie. I don't know that we'll have another Spider-Man movie from Sony (probably not), but Disney has one starring Tom Holland as the infamous web-slinger due out in summer of 2017, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of this Spider-Man in action as well. We came to Civil War to watch Captain America and Iron-Man throw down, but frankly Black Panther and Spider-Man pretty much stole the show in every scene they were in.

So, we've got this new villain that gets much of the two storylines rolling. Helmut Zemo plays such a small role in everything that I often forgot he was there orchestrating events so far behind the scenes that he was often overlooked. He's not powerful, he has no superhuman abilities, he's working alone, he was dangerous only because of knowledge and convictions he held. He wasn't even much of a villain, but more of a weasel who would sneak around and push buttons in just the right way to get a small reaction that would escalate exponentially into big conflicts while almost entirely avoiding attention. I'm not even familiar enough with Marvel comics to know if this was ever a major villain; I've never heard of him before. He's a pretty good weasel, and his subtlety is a refreshing change of pace from the over-the-top flashy villains we've had in the past.

Captain America: Civil War begins the next wave of Marvel movies with an action-packed blockbuster boasting a decidedly non-cartoonish plot and the courage to explore some thought-provoking themes. It's thematically heavy, and indeed doesn't end on as positive a note as we usually get from Superhero movies. The writing is excellent, the large cast of heroes all get their due screen time and moments to shine, and their clashing personalities are positively delightful. The action is creative and riveting to say the least. Civil War is fun, smart, and coherent. Most importantly, it allows its heart to beat strongly amid the chaos, with character moments and set pieces working together to create one of Marvel's best films so far. I loved Captain America: Civil War. It is worth the ticket price to see in theaters, and worth getting a copy of when it's available on home video. Just make sure you're all caught up on previous Marvel movies before you see it; like The Avengers movies, it's important to know where each character is before they all come together again.

So, which side were you on while seeing this movie, Team Captain America or Team Iron Man? Comment below and tell me why, but please be careful to avoid spoilers.

The Jungle Book Review

So, it seems that live-action remakes of classic Disney animated features are going to be a trend now. I still say that Maleficent was not that impressive, while Cinderella exceeded my expectations. I'd heard about a live-action Beauty and the Beast remake, but a live-action version of The Jungle Book (2016) slipped under my "coming soon" movies radar. The original animated Jungle Book isn't one of Disney's greatest films, though I enjoyed it as a kid. This newer version has more story to it and is more thematically cogent.

Raised by a family of wolves since birth, Mowgli (Neel Sethi) must leave the only home he's ever known when the fearsome tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) unleashes his mighty roar. Guided by a no-nonsense panther (Ben Kingsley) and a free-spirited bear (Bill Murray), the young boy meets an array of jungle animals who don't have his best interests at heart, including a slithery python (Scarlett Johansson) and a smooth-talking ape (Christopher Walken).

The Jungle Book is a collection of short stories written in 1894 by Rudyard Kipling. And according to Disney tradition, their original 1967 animated musical was a significantly watered down and sugar-coated version that had little to do with the book upon which it was based. There was a 1994 live-action version of The Jungle Book which featured no talking animals. This third version of The Jungle Book strikes a balance between Disney's two previous versions by retaining the buoyant spirit of the 1967 films (as well as some of its memorable songs) while crafting a movie with more realism and peril. I think this balance worked out very well.

In the animated Jungle Book, there wasn't much theme or story surrounding it. Disney was content to have some cute characters sing some musical numbers and have a villain generate some kind of tension regardless of how vague his motives might be. Thematically, I interpreted the animated movie to be about growing up. Mowgli is being encouraged to leave the fun filled jungle and go to the man village and take on responsibilities, Mowgli resists this, trying on new animal personas, up until he discovers a human young lady and then has no trouble at all moving from childhood. In this version of The Jungle Book, it's more about nature and man's place in it. Back in Kipling's day, nature was something to be overcome and tamed, where as now nature is something to be protected. Mowgli loves and respects nature, but as a human he is prone to making and using tools. This is mankind's adaptive skill, as opposed to tooth and claw that the rest of the animal kingdom has. It is established, that while Mowgli's tools have very practical use, they are not in alignment with the natural world, and it would be in his best interest to leave the jungle to be with his own kind where such tools are more inherent. A sense of urgency is produced by Shere Kahn who distrusts man and his tools because he was burned by fire or "Man's red flower" which disfigured him. Fire itself is developed as a powerful tool that humans use. Fire was similar to The One Ring in The Lord of the Rings, in that controlling it was  going to give someone ultimate power, but corrupt them as well as create destruction. Thematically, everything fit together beautifully. The story and theme were woven together in this new interpretation without detracting from the fun quality of the original animated film.

Initially, I was surprised that more of the movie was not shot in actual jungle locations, given the prominent theme of preserving the natural order of things. This was a CGI intensive movie that used a lot of green screen to create a surreal, dreamlike world. The Jungle Book made glorious use of photo-realistic rendering, computer-generated imagery, and motion capture technologies in such a way that frankly rivaled the innovations of Avatar and Life of Pi. Among the most impressive uses was the motion capture, and none was more impressive than that done for the character of King Louie. This antagonist shows up later in the movie, and is essentially the catalyst which gives Mowgli the idea of how he can defeat Shere Kahn. When we see King Louie, I thought he looked familiar. It took me a few minutes before I realized that this Gigantopithecus, looked, sounded, and acted a whole lot like Christopher Walken. The mannerisms were so spot on of the actor, even Louie's eyes looked like Walken's. The visuals and camera work are nothing short of amazing.

Admittedly, I wasn't real keen on a remake of The Jungle Book, since I didn't find the original all that great. But this version was fantastic! It's as lovely to behold as it is engrossing to watch, and is only bolstered by a stellar vocal cast. The Jungle Book actually makes significant improvements upon its predecessors while setting remarkable new standards for CGI. This wasn't a musical, though it had Baloo singing a bit of the song "Bear Necessities" and King Louie singing a shorter and slightly altered version of "I Wan'na Be Like You" to give it a different context for this version of the movie. Though not part of the actual movie, Scarlet Johansson sings Kaa's "Trust in Me" song over the end credits. This is a good movie and worth the money to see in theaters; it would be a great film to see as a family. I'd also consider getting a copy on home video when it's available.

Disney is cranking out live-action versions of their animated classics. I'm still looking forward to Beauty and the Beast, even more so after seeing this the fantastic transition made on Cinderella and now The Jungle Book. What is an animated Disney movie that you'd like to see made into a live-action film? Comment below.

Chef Review

Jon Favreau initially started as an indie film favorite actor and director. He moved on to bigger and better things, but recently came back to doing independent films. His most recent endeavor was Chef (2014). This was a lot of fun on its own, but if you know what to look for, you can view it as a tongue-in-cheek autobiography of sorts. That aspect aside, Chef is a good solid film that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is an acclaimed chef with a family life that seems as decaying as his artistic freedom. Those frustrations boil over into a raucous viral-videoed public confrontation against a restaurant critic (Oliver Platt) who panned his cooking of food that his boss (Dustin Hoffman) ordered him to make against his instincts. Now with his career ruined, Carl's ex-wife, Inez (Sofía Vergara) offers an unorthodox solution in Miami: refit an old food truck to offer quality cooking on his own terms. Now with his young son, Percy (Emjay Anthony), and old colleague, Martin (John Leguizamo), helping, Carl takes a working trip across America with that truck to rediscover his gastronomic passion. With Percy's social media tech savvy and Martin's enthusiasm, Carl finds that he is creating a traveling sensation on the way home. In doing so, Carl discovers he is serving up more than simply food, but also a deeper connection with his life and his family that is truly delicious in its own way.

We have Jon Favreau to thank for getting the Marvel Cinematic Universe rolling. He directed the first two Iron Man movies. If that first Iron Man movie hadn't as amazing as it was, there wouldn't have been additional Marvel movies and we never would have got to The Avengers and other fantastic films. As I'd suggested in my Age of Ultron review, Marvel seems to be constraining and limiting its directors. In the case of Favreau, he was flat out replaced as the director for the third Iron Man movie. I don't know if that was specifically why he didn't direct the third movie, but I'm inclined to think so. It was an influence, at least.

At any rate, Favreau got a big thing going but stopped to return to indie films where he would have more flexibility and creativity with less influence from studio executives controlling his creative process. This was similar to Carl stepping down from a nice restaurant to work in a food truck. Favreau said he also worked comparisons to Carl and himself, such as being a father while having a busy career and coming from a broken home. I get the impression that Chef was a kind of therapeutic means of self expression for Favreau; and I wish more celebrity therapy would result in excellent films like this.

The cast was fantastic in this movie. You can tell that Favreau, himself, threw his whole heart into the role and into the production. Leguizamo was a lot of fun as well, playing an optimist who was both laid back and a hard worker at the same time. This is the first time I've seen child actor Emjay Anthony on screen. His is quite talented for a kid actor; only once or twice did his acting falter, but only by a little bit. Some of Favreau's other actor friends were involved in small roles. For example, this was the second time Favreau, Robert Downy, Jr. and Scarlet Johansson all worked together on a project directed by Favreau. The cast was simply outstanding, and created some highly relatable and likable characters.

The food in Chef was just as important as the characters themselves. And it was positively gorgeous to look at. Watching things simmer, melt, sear, roast, and cook was delightful. Then seeing the succulent meats sliced, and exceedingly fancy dishes prepared was titillating. The food photography was every bit as tantalizing and fascinating as it was in The Hundred-Foot Journey and Julie & Julia. You will probably be famished by the time you're done watching this movie. Even if you aren't intrigued by the main plot, you won't be able to take your eyes away from the amazing food on the screen.

Chef is rated R for language. There are very few characters who don't work in the kitchen at one point or another during the movie. And having worked in a kitchen myself, I know how stressful, frantic, and fast-paced everything often is. Profanity abounds as part of the job. Having said that, the profanity seems perfectly at home in the scenes where it is used. Currently, a PG-13 movie can get away with no more than two F-bombs. Truly the only reason Chef has an R rating is because there are more than two F-bombs. I think it's reasonably applied to the situations and characters, so I don't view it as being bad. It's just maybe not something you would want to play in the presence of impressionable children.

Whatever you do, don't go see Chef on an empty stomach. It's a feel-good foodie film that will have you salivating within minutes. Whether it is an artistic statement or self-justification of film craft, Chef confirms the core talent of Jon Favreau. It's comfort-food-meets-comfort-movie. Favreau wrote, directed, and starred in this excellent film on a smaller scale than his previous films, but this is by no means a film of a poorer quality. The story is a modern telling of a familiar feel-good formula, but it's an excellent example of that formula. As of writing this, it is available to watch streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend seeing it, just not on an empty stomach. I liked Chef well enough to want a copy on my movie shelves.

Can you think of another simi-autobiographical movie like Chef where the movie makes indirect comparison to its writer/director? Comment below and tell me about it!

The Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

As I understand it, Marvel/Disney was originally considering doing only one superhero team up movie, but after The Avengers broke box office records and became the third highest grossing film, they changed their minds. Following The Avengers we got to keep up with some of our heroes in Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Finally, with much anticipation, The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) was released. While it's an exciting and fun ride, it's not nearly as satisfying as the first Avengers movie.

Now officially fighting as allies, The Avengers - Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) - raid a Hydra outpost where Hydra has been experimenting on humans using the scepter previously wielded by Loki. The Avengers encounter two of the experiments; twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) who possess powers of superhuman speed and psychic powers respectively. Once the scepter is retrieved, Stark and Banner discover an artificial intelligence within the scepter's gem and secretly use it to complete Stark's Ultron global defense program. Unexpectedly, Ultron (James Spader) believes he must eradicate humanity to save Earth. The Ultron A.I. eliminates Stark's A.I, J.A.R.V.I.S. (Paul Bettany), takes control of Starks global defense program, and attacks The Avengers in their headquarters. Building newer mechanical bodies to house himself in, Ultron soon has an army of robots under his control as well as the Maximoff twins. Ultron puts his complex plan into action, but as he systematically exploits the weaknesses of each of The Avengers, the six of them may not be enough to save the world again.

Joss Whedon returns to direct Age of Ultron. He's proved his writing and directing skills many times over. He is particularly proficient in telling stories with multiple characters; it's tricky to tell a good story about more than one or two characters and still give them their own compelling story arch. That was expertly done in the previous Avengers movie. Here, Whedon again allows the very distinct characters their own screen time, lets them have their moment to shine, and lets them bounce off of each other wonderfully.

There are problems with the movie, though, and I'm not confident that it is Whedon's fault. I can tell studio executives got their hands on things a lot, effectively limiting and constraining Whedon's creative liberties. It's as if they tinkered with what was probably a much better script to maximize what they thought would make money and draw in audiences, at the expense of what would be a solid, satisfying movie. Iron Man, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were phenomenal successes because they were left in the hands of competent directors and writers. If future Marvel movies are manipulated by the studio and executives as much as this one is, I can't see the franchise doing as well further down the road.

The movie becomes practically bloated with his huge cast of characters with new allies, enemies, and cameos making appearances. Maria Hill, Nick Fury, War Machine, Peggy Carter, Prof. Selvig, Heimdall, and Falcon all return from previous movies to make appearances to varying degrees. There are even some overt hints at future characters whom we know will be getting their own movies if you know what to look for. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly exciting to see more Marvel characters make it to the big screen, but it effectively gets to the point that there are too many characters to keep track of. Age of Ultron doesn't rely on previous films to develop the returning characters; they still develop and have their own story arches, but there are so many story arches to keep track of.

Age of Ultron is a long movie with a run time just shy of two and a half hours. As I understand it, it was originally closer to three hours long. You can tell that there were chunks of the movie omitted. After having his mind toyed with by Wanda, Thor decides that he must leave briefly go on a vision quest. We see very little of this quest, none of the actual vision, and are left confused by Thor's sudden change in perspective. This was not a small change as Thor suddenly takes actions against his fellow Avengers, insisting that they trust him. We don't understand Thor's motives here, and it is caused by important scenes being cut from the movie. There are a couple of other times where scenes left on the cutting room floor make the story hard to follow. It's no less exciting and fun to watch, but certainly gets harder to follow and a bit confusing.

One of my favorite scenes was the party following the retrieval of Loki's scepter. Our heroes are socializing, relaxing, and sharing their victory. Thor and Stark quibble about who has the better girlfriend, Romanoff and Banner flirt with one another in a charmingly awkward way, Rhodes/War Machine tries to find an audience to tell his victory stories to, Steve gives relationship advice about waiting too long, and it culminates with various characters trying to lift Thor's hammer. This developed the characters various histories, interests, and personalities wonderfully. But the tone changes drastically when Ultron interrupts, appearing for the first time in a battered mechanical body. He's weak and just learning how to make a body for himself; he resembles a broken, creepy marionette and delivers a disturbing and beautifully written dialogue about how The Avengers are all killers, and he has a mission to bring peace to the world. In spite of its flaws, what the movie does well, it does very well. It may be bloated with many characters, but they are, for the most part, good characters. Even Ultron is an intimidating and menacing villain.

The previous Avengers movie was incredible, and was greater than the sum of its parts. The Avengers: Age of Ultron, frankly, is not. But it still boasts some pretty incredible parts and is one heck of a fun superhero party. There's more superhero action, the story is influenced by the various storylines from all the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies all the way back to Iron Man, and boasts some amazing visual effects. It is abundantly clear that the movie suffers from creative constraints imposed by the studio and scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. But there is going to be a three-hour extended cut with an alternate ending available once it hits blue-ray, so maybe that will improve the overall quality by having few scenes left out. This is absolutely worth seeing in the theaters; it may not be as satisfying as the previous film, but it's not one to miss. I also advise watching the phase two Marvel movies I mentioned at the top of this review again to remember where our heroes were before this movie started.

Joss Whedon won't be returning for the third Avengers movie. Do you think another director will do as good a job? Comment below and tell me what you think!

Lucy Movie Review

One should never trust a movie by its trailer. The director nor the production crew actually makes a movie's trailer. Very often, the movie studio shows us what it thinks we want to see in order to get ticket sales up even if it's a misrepresentation of the movie. Lucy (2014) was marketed as a big budget action movie, but what we were given was something very different. Not necessarily bad, but very different.

It was supposed to be a simple job. All Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) had to do was deliver a mysterious briefcase to Mr. Jang (Min-Sik Choi). But immediately Lucy is caught up in a nightmarish deal where she is captured and turned into a drug mule for a new and powerful synthetic drug called CPH4. When the bag she is carrying inside of her stomach leaks, Lucy's body undergoes  unimaginable changes that unlocks her mind's full potential. With her new-found powers she seeks out the other drug mules to retrieve the CPH4 and further expand her abilities and knowledge. Lucy receives invaluable help from Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman), the leading authority on the human mind, and French police captain Pierre Del Rio (Amr Waked). With these newfound powers and knowledge, Lucy is at a loss as to what to do with them. She suspects that between the mob tracking her down and the affects of the drug on her physiology she may not have much time left to live.

Lucy and Limitless are very similar in premise. Both allege that we use only 10% of our brain and that great abilities and achievements can be reached if we can use a greater percent of it. This is a stupid myth that has no basis. But as I said in my Limitless review, it is grounds for potentially interesting sci-fi stories.

Lucy is not the action flick we were promised in the trailers. In fact, I think all of the action scenes in the movie were in the trailer itself. Even then, the action wasn't always riveting. It's interesting because the director, Luc Besson, also directed The Fifth Element and that was an action packed movie. Lucy acts as a vehicle to illustrate a philosophical idea. During a high-speed car ride through Paris, Captain Del Rio is trying to stay calm and tell Lucy, who is driving, "I'd rather be late than dead." to which Lucy responds, "We never really die."  In fact, the movie tells us point blank at the end of the movie, "Life was given to us a billion years ago. Now you know what to do with it." Lucy's interpretation of life is interesting, but I hardly felt like I knew what to do with my life afterwards. It wasn't much of an action movie, and while it threw around interesting ideas I don't think it was all that great of a philosophical movie either.

One of the weirder things that was done early on in the movie was random cutaway shots of animals. It made sense, but I felt it was redundant. At the opening of the movie, Lucy's scumbag boyfriend is trying to get her to take the locked suitcase full of drugs into the hotel for Mr. Jang. This cuts away to a mouse approaching a baited mouse trap. A few moments later when the mob is closing in to abduct Lucy, it cuts away to national geographic stock footage of a cheetah stocking an antelope, and again with the cheetah dragging the captured prey after the mob has picked her up. Yes, we know it's a trap, we know she's been caught. Why make this wildlife analogy? It interrupted the flow of the movie and took the audience out of the movie by showing them something non-sequitur. Fortunately they stopped doing this early on; I'm not sure why that bit of randomness lasted through the editing process.

There were several scenes that I would have done differently had I been the director. Later on in the movie Lucy's powers have made her so removed from normal humans that she begins to lose her humanity. Given that, in a scene where the mob has her at gunpoint, it would have made more sense to have her make the gunmen each shoot themselves. That would have been gross and not something I'd like to watch, but would have better illustrated how far removed she has become from her humanity. But instead she makes the guns levitate out of the gunman's hands. There was some lost potential in several scenes.

Lucy is rated R, but it is a tame R. There was little profanity and some minor suggested sexuality; I've seen much worse in PG-13 movies. Really this movie gets the R rating from the violent action, and I didn't think there was a lot of that. There's some pretty overt blood splatter and gore resulting from gunplay and blade weapons in two or three scenes. I've seen much gorier stuff, but apart from these scenes, this really isn't that bad. If the violence had been toned down just a little it would have safely been PG-13. Still, it's not something to take young viewers to, and if you're put off by some graphic gunplay you may want to skip this movie.

Lucy was nowhere near what the trailer promised us, but if you can get around the marketing's bait-and-switch, it's not a bad movie. I'm glad I saw it, I'd be up for a second viewing. What Besson has done here is taken a silly concept and elevated it to a level that can best be described as insane poetry. It tries hard to be philosophical, but wasn't as deep as it thinks it is. It was marketed as an action movie, but it's not all that action packed. The action was good, but it wasn't the point of the movie. Johansen is amazing as ever, and her performance makes all the nonsense more believable than it otherwise might be. I'd recommend seeing this if you can handle a few short scenes of blood and gore, but it's a renter.

I know you are already using 100% of your brain, but in the whimsical world of sci-fi, what would you do if you could unlock 100% of your brain as was done in Lucy? Comment below and tell me about it!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier Movie Review

Considering the current state of America and its government's reluctance, inability , or refusal to help average, non-wealthy, non-corporation citizens, it seems the only kind of patriotism these days is the knee-jerk "we're number one" nationalism variety. I praised Captain America: The First Avenger for its comments on patriotism and where the true strength of America lies. Now that Captain America is finished with The Avengers movie and is returning for his own second movie I had high hopes for more patriotism, political commentary, and superhero action. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) did not disappoint.

For Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), awakening after decades of suspended animation involves more than catching up on pop culture; it also means that this old school idealist must face a new world of subtler threats and difficult moral complexities. That becomes clear when Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is killed by the mysterious assassin,  The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), but not before warning Rogers that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been subverted by its enemies. When Rogers acts on Fury's warning to trust no one there, he is branded a traitor to the organization by Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), a senior leader within S.H.I.E.L.D, a member of the World Security Council, and an old comrade of Nick Fury. Now a Fugitive, Captain America must get to the bottom of this deadly mystery with the help of Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and his new friend, Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie). The battle will be costly for Captain America, with Rogers finding enemies where he least expects them while learning that The Winter Soldier looks disturbingly familiar.

The characters in Captain America: The Winter Soldier were positively amazing. Steve Rogers in particular was great. He's been working for S.H.I.E.L.D. for the two years that followed the events in The Avengers, and he's still trying to adjust to the modern world. It's not so much a question about his shock with modern technology as it is about societal differences. He has gone from the 1940's to today; he comes from a world where people were more trusting and the threats were not as deep. Now it's harder to tell who's right and who's wrong. In our world, actions you take to protect people from threats could compromise liberties and privacy. That is really tough for Steve to swallow. He is teamed up with Natasha and they form a fascinating dichotomous contrast. She is incredibly modern, not very reverent, and exceedingly blunt whereas Steve is a man from the 40's. Steve isn't necessarily a boy scout, but he is reserved and has a strong moral center, whereas her moral center moves around as the situation requires. As a spy, Natasha lies for a living. Steve is a character who tells the truth. Give them a problem and they'll have very different ways of approaching it. She pushes him to modernize while he pushes her to add a certain level of integrity to her life. The characters and their respective actors bounce off each other beautifully.

The First Avenger told us about real patriotic American values. Winter Soldier makes some fascinating commentary about modern politics in a very relevant way without being heavy handed in trying to be relevant. It raises questions about the United States Government and how it behaves. It does this in a smart, almost subversive way. It's very pertinent to how we define freedom currently, versus how we defined freedom in the 1940's. There is a scene early in the film that sets up this interesting question. Fury tells Rogers a story about his grandfather and a gun; basically a variation on "walk softly and carry a big stick." But then Fury shows Rogers "the stick;" weaponry that can take out 100 hostiles in a minute, than can read a terrorist's DNA from a million miles away, and basically eliminate threats before they can become threats. "We're going to neutralize a lot of threats before they even happen," Fury tells Rogers. "I thought punishment usually came after the crime," Rogers objects. "S.H.I.E.L.D. takes the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be," says Fury. Rogers boldly retorts by telling him “You hold a gun on everyone on Earth and call it protection. This isn’t freedom. This is fear.” How could one not think of the way America has invaded other countries based on rumors of stockpiled weaponry or the monitoring internet use for any signs of correspondence with enemies? In the other Marvel movies we've had invading aliens, killer robots, and super powered villains to fight. Here we've got very human enemies that are using very real methods to attack and undermine the good guys. The only things we're asked to believe is the "super soldier" Steve Rogers being at above normal human ability, and S.H.I.E.L.D.'s airships and their Bond-style spy gear. Everything else is pretty down to earth, and that makes it all the more relatable. The villains aren't just trying to take over the world, they're probably targeting YOU specifically!

Disney has taken over Marvel and their second wave of movies leading up to The Avengers 2 has been good so far. These Avengers movies have proven to be a corporate cash cow, and I'm surprised that they took the chance to tackle these big issues rather than playing it safe. And similar to what was done in Iron Man 3, it messes around with the franchise canon a bit. I won't spoil anything, but any fan will know that is horribly taboo. S.H.I.E.L.D. has never been without it's issues, and I'm interested to see where the movie series goes with it.

The Winter Soldier was a formidable opponent for Captain America to face, but The Soldier didn't have much of a presence until toward the end of the movie. He's a good villain and introduces further moral dilemmas for Captain America to deal with. Moral dilemmas for Captain America are always black and white, but The Winter Soldier presents the only real grey area that he has had to face. It makes the character dynamic all the more fascinating. Sebastian Stan did an outstanding job acting this part; he gets few spoken lines, and most of his face is obscured for much of his screen time. Having said that, he manages to portray a great deal of emotion through facial expression and actions. Stan did a great job in this role given his limited screen time. The Winter Soldier's theme music starts off eerie and gradually swells into a sort of panic screech which makes the formidable enemy all the more frightening. I didn't think he played a big enough role to get his name in the title of the movie. If you're familiar at all with the comic books, you'll know that The Winter Soldier has a huge story arc and that this is probably just the first chapter of his tale.

Captain America: The Winter Solider was excellent. It delves deeper into theme and character than the other Marvel superhero movies have. It's a very character driven movie that has some very pertinent themes that are magnificently woven into the story so as to avoid being preachy. We get several new characters and we get some glimpses into their past without focusing on unnecessary details; each character has their own distinct arc. The action is great, the pacing is even, and the effects are amazing. Even if you don't enjoy super hero movies that much, you'll probably enjoy this one. I recommend brushing up on your Captain America lore by watching the first movie again before seeing this one. Make sure you watch for Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk references, and stick around for mid-credit and post credit scenes. I'm going to be getting a copy of this when it hits Blu-ray. Don't miss this movie!

Have you seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier yet? What did you think? Avoid spoilers, but tell me what your impressions were and what the future might hold for the Marvel Universe movies.

Her Movie Review

March is quickly approaching, which means that Academy Awards season is here. This means that there's a lot of Oscar Bait in theaters between December and March. Her (2013) seems like Oscar Bait material; biographies, period dramas, weepy inspirational stories, big name actors, etc. Her wasn't half bad, but I'm not sure it's going to win Best Picture.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is a lonely man in the final stages of his divorce with his childhood sweetheart Catherine (Rooney Mara). When he's not working as a letter writer, his down time is spent playing video games and occasionally hanging out with his married friends Amy (Amy Adams) and Charles (Matt Letscher). Theodore decides to purchase the new OS1, which is advertised as the world's first artificially intelligent operating system, "It's not just an operating system, it's a consciousness," the ad states. Theodore quickly finds himself drawn in with Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), the voice behind his OS1. As they start spending time together they grow closer and closer and eventually find themselves in love. Having fallen in love with his OS, Theodore finds himself dealing with feeling of both great joy and doubt. As an OS, Samantha has powerful intelligence that she uses to help Theodore in ways others hadn't, but how does she help him deal with his inner conflict of being in love with an operating system?

The thing that makes this such Oscar Bait material is that there is a lot of dialogue about life, love, and what it all means; that's a telltale sign. That's not necessarily bad; in fact Her does this quite well. It's an impressive piece of writing. In fact, one of the Academy Awards that Her is up for is Best Writing and I think it's got a very good shot at it. The frequent exposition on love and relationships is thought provoking, poignant, and flows naturally with events in the story. It didn't exactly make me want to run out and fall rapturously in love with someone and appreciate the tender moments in life as other movies have, but it's still a solid piece of writing.

What makes this movie so interesting is the fact that Theodore is falling in love with an incorporeal personality; specifically artificial intelligent software on his computer. This adds a surreal quality to this love story. You don't doubt that Theodore and Samantha are in love, but how can that possibly work out under the best of circumstances? Her does address this and explores the surreal nature of the relationship. There is a "sex" scene which really is just Theodor laying in bed by himself while he and Samantha are describing what each would be doing if they could actually touch one another. It really is a strange and surreal scene. It manages to express what a normal sex scene usually does, that is depict the unity of the two characters, while also drawing lots of attention to how bizarre that unity is.

Her also comments on our "relationship" with our technology today. We are so plugged into our computers, smart phones, and iPads that we are gravitating away from human interaction and connectedness with real people. This is particularly well illustrated as Theodore's job is acting as a ghostwriter for clients. He makes handwritten letters to a recipient, which is printed out, put in an envelope, and mailed off. The idea of literally falling in love with technology is not too much of a stretch of the imagination. Frankly, if Theodore and Samantha were both human doing the same things ,the movie wouldn't be nearly as interesting. But seeing this guy on a date with a disembodied voice who sees through the lens of his cell phone is attention-grabbing. It's one thing to see someone guide a date by the hand to a surprise; it's another thing entirely to see a guy wandering around with his eyes shut and his cell phone out in front of him as a disembodied voice directs him to a surprise.

Her isn't a bad movie. It's got interesting characters, an original concept, some excellent writing, great camera work and direction by Spike Jonze, and a great performances from the cast. Since this is a movie about adults and relationships, there are several adult scenes and adult dialogue. It's all meaningfully implemented, but put me off only as a matter of personal preference. It's still a good solid movie even with the Oscar Bait material. I recommend seeing this if you're not too put off by the adult situations.

Would you date an operating system? What kind of perks might that have? Comment below and tell me why!

The Island Movie Review

Director Michael Bay is notorious for making movies with lots of high intensity action and tons of special effects. Not all of his movies are good; in fact some are just flat out stupid. Even when the movie is ridiculous and hard to take seriously, it cannot be said that the action isn't awesome. Somehow I missed the release of The Island (2005). I've had several people recommend it to me in the past few weeks, so I made sure to see it. It's pretty interesting for a Michael Bay movie.

Lincoln Six-Echo (Ewan McGregor) is a resident of a seemingly Utopian, but contained, facility in the year 2019. Like all of the inhabitants of this carefully controlled environment, Lincoln hopes to be chosen to go to "The Island," reportedly the last uncontaminated spot on the planet. But Lincoln soon discovers that everything is not what it appears to be. He makes a daring escape with a beautiful fellow resident named Jordan Two-Delta (Scarlett Johansson). The two are relentlessly pursued by the facility's administrator, Dr. Bernard Merrick (Sean Bean), and his hired mercenaries. Lincoln and Jordan race to find help and protection in a world they know nothing about.

Surely you've seen a Michael Bay movie before. Transformers, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor probably come to mind. If you've seen these movies then you already know they are special effects intensive, feature lots of action, and an uncommonly high number of explosions. That's basically the main reasons to watch a Michael Bay movie. The man is a genius when it comes to orchestrating beautiful pyrotechnic stunts.

In The Island, however, it's almost like he's done a double feature of some sort. The first part of the movie is similar to the "escape from paradise" movies that were popular in the 1960's and 70's, like Logan's Run or Fahrenheit 451. It acts as a creepy, yet relatively calm, science fiction parable, which later shifts into a high-tech adrenaline-pumping action movie. The second half is more like a Michael Bay movie. Both "halves" of the movie are great fun individually, but they contrast each other so much in terms of pacing, theme, and tone that I'm not sure if they work well together. It's almost like watching a double feature with the same cast.

The Utopian facility at the beginning of the movie is not terribly complicated to figure out. The inhabitants are childlike and blissful, all except for the few troublesome characters like Lincoln who wants bacon for breakfast but is given oatmeal. This causes him develop something that all closed systems fear, curiosity. McGregor and Johansson do a phenomenal job of playing characters raised to be docile, obedient, and frankly not very bright. It's great to see how Bay gradually thrusts upon them carefully controlled amounts of knowledge which both moves the plot forward and shows the characters losing their illusions.

The second part of the movie is an insane series of chase scenes by train, car, and hover-cycle, that showcase some stellar special effects with absurd urgency. How our heroes discover the underlying truth about their world while moving so fast is beyond me. Maybe people in the facility aren't as slow witted as we thought. Car chases on highways are difficult to film, but Michael Bay has a knack for filming great chase scenes. There are a good number of crashes, explosions, and cliffhangers which by every right should have killed everyone involved. Yet our heroes escape and keep going. How? I have no idea. But it was really fun and exciting to watch!

I didn't feel like The Island draws much of a conclusive ending. The climax of the film certainly fulfills the requirements of the second half of the story, but it leaves questions raised in the first half unanswered. We get a satisfactory ending to all the action, but it's as if the movie completely forgot about the first half. That's part of the reason why I think each half of the movie is good, but they don't quite work well together.

The Island is a fun movie. It's got lots of crazy action, some good acting, reasonably decent writing, good directing, and a story that is as illogical and full of plot holes as any other Michael Bay movie. If you're looking for something deep and intellectually stimulating, you shouldn't bother with a Michael Bay movie. The Island was fun and exciting. That's all it is, and that's what Michael Bay is good at. Like any good sci-fi movie, The Island should cause you to reflect on contemporary issues. If you don't think of something like stem-cell research or government monitoring, you might be missing one of the few intellectually stimulating bits of The Island. I recommend seeing this movie; it's not a classic for the ages, but it's achieves what it sets out to do. I think it might even be worth owning a copy for the next time you're in the mood for a crazy action movie.

What's your favorite "escape from paradise" movie? I kind of liked Logan's Run. Comment below and tell me about yours!