Knowing - Summit Entertainment

I finally made it to the movie theatre to check out this movie. Of course, by now, it's at the $1 movies . . actually $1.50 or $2, depending on which day you go . . but that's ok. There's nothing more satisfying than watching a movie for a buck . . or 2. Going in to it, I really didn't know anything about this movie, other than he finds a list that foretells every cataclysmic event in the last 50 years. It had a neat premise. 50 years ago an elementary school class participated in the burying of a time capsule. They all made pictures to put in it. One student however, who seemed to be haunted by voices whispering to her, puts in a paper that's a big list of numbers. 50 years later, when the capsule is opened, Nicholas Cage's son, Chandler Canterbury, is given the page with all the numbers on it. Nicholas' character, who is an MIT professor, quickly notices a pattern in the numbers. It turns out they're a list of dates, and casualties, of events that have happened in our recent history . . 50 years. One of which is the hotel fire in which his wife died a year or so ago. Nicholas' character was a religious man. At least he came from a religious background. But, upon his wife's death, he forgot all those beliefs. He gave up the notions of 'destiny' and 'pre-determination' for those of chaos and randomness. A universe without a supreme being. Those are pretty strong, and intense themes throughout the movie, but . . I don't feel that that's what it was all about. Yes it was a driving force for him, but . . I really think it was his thirst for knowledge and answers . . no matter what the cost, or repercussions, that was this characters motivation. I don't think he was necessarily trying to prove or disprove any beliefs, he just wanted to know why his wife died and what purpose it served . . other than the 'random chaos' that he now believes makes up the universe. He never really gets the answers to those questions, but . . the movie does come to an unexpected conclusion. Yes it's the natural course of events . . what the movie was leading up to, but . . I didn't really think that they'd go there. I thought that somehow they'd avert the crisis. And the mystery men that appear . . the 'whisperers'? They're really left to the viewers interpretation. They could be angels, aliens, from the future . . it's never really explained. You have to sort that one out yourself. Being a father though, the part that always appeals to me the most is the relationship between the father and son figures. There's a really touching moment during the end of the movie between Nicholas and his son that had my eyes watering. My wife was balling. But it really made me think that everything he had done during this story was to try to protect his son, and make his life a little better . . a little easier. As much as he mourned his wife's loss, I think he also felt guilty that he left his son without a mother. In the end it's a science-fiction movie . . with a science-fiction story and ending. But I think it's the human story that makes it worth watching. I think it might be a good movie to watch a second time . . to pick up on some of the stuff I missed the first, now that I know what's going to happen. Either way, I feel like I got my $1 worth, and I enjoyed it. The ending was a bit . . questionable, but . . what else were they supposed to do? 

Star Trek - Paramount Pictures

So, anyways . . after we went to see Wolverine we finally get to see the new Star Trek. Tell me you weren't intrigued by those trailers you saw. They were awesome. And actually, I thought the movie was too. I like Star Trek, but . . I'm not a die-hard Trekkie. I've probably seen most of TOS, and loved ST:TNG. That one was easily my favorite. I've seen most of DS9, but saw none of the Voyager or the Enterprise series. That's a lot of Star Trek to watch. And now . . 11 movies also. Whodathunk that Gene Roddenberry was creating such an iconic giant some 43 years ago. I also read most of the comic books, from Marvel and DC, but . . those just weren't the same thing. Anyways, my point is, I'm pretty familiar with the series. Much more so than my wife. She watched most of ST:TNG with me, but was never really interested in anything else. I actually don't know that she's seen any other Star Trek movies than this one. So, again, we were going at this one from 2 completely different perspectives. The film has some familiar faces in it. Chris Pine plays Kirk. The only thing I really saw him in was Smokin' Aces. But Zachary Quinto plays Spock, which I immediately knew from Heroes. Another one of my favorite shows. I was a bit concerned about comparing him to his Sylar character, but . . those worries quickly proved moot. And of course Leonard Nimoy plays a huge part in this film, but now until about half-way through. The other ones I recognized were Anton Yelchin as Chekov. He was the son in Huff. And of course Eric Bana, who plays the movie's villain, Nero. Winona Ryder also makes a couple of appearances as Spock's mother, but I completely didn't recognize her. The basic set-up of the film is . . in the year 2387 the galaxy is threatened by a super-nova. Spock tries to destroy it by creating an artificial black-hole out of 'red-matter'. However, before he can do so, the super-nova destroys Romulus. Nero, who is a mining captain, and off-planet at the time, finds out what happened and blames Spock for his world's destruction. His ship, as well as Spock's, become caught up in the black-hole and travels back in time. Nero arrives first, some 154 years prior, but Spock doesn't show up for 25 years after that. Nero arrives is a space storm which the USS Kelvin is investigating. Thinking that Nero's ship is causing the storm, and therefore threatening, the Kelvin attacks. However, it's quickly overpowered by the Romulan ship. And, since it's captain is off-ship, trying to prompt a diplomatic dialogue with the alien ship, George Kirk the first-officer, James' father, is in charge when the ship goes down. He does however save most of the crew as he scuttles them off at the last second. Also, to add to the drama, George's wife, who is in labor, delivers during all of this. The last thing George hears, or knows, is that his wife has given birth to their son James. Nero then apparently goes into hiding, waiting for Spock's return. In that time, James grows up as a reckless youth. It's never really addressed but, I assume James' following, and knowledge of Star-fleet is bent out of drive for revenge. Not against Star-fleet, but against whatever it was that killed his father. He's brilliant, but reckless, so he doesn't go far in the school rankings. It's like he's waiting for something to happen. It appears that moment begins when, from his motorcycle, he watches the USS Enterprise being built. From there it seems that he applies himself more . . it also doesn't hurt that he's pretty close friends with Captain Pike. When a lightning storm appears near Vulcan, the cadets are recruited for duty, but Kirk's disappointed when he's not assigned to the Enterprise. That's when his buddy McCoy, whom he's befriended through the academy, helps smuggle him aboard as his ailing patient. Anyways, you can get the rest of the story from any one of a hundred web-sites. Long story short, the past is changed, and the future is opened up for these characters to become the new crew of the Enterprise. Spock's return to the past, and the surviving of Captain Pike, has changed the events of the past. Things are similar to the way they rolled out in TOS, but there's enough variances that if they decide to pursue this new course . . they've erased all problems with continuity. If you haven't seen the movie I know that sounds hokey. But it really works. Through the whole thing, I'm comparing what I know about TOS, to what's playing out on the screen. There, we know, Captain Pike died. So when it seemed like things were going a bit 'off-script' . . such as Uhura becoming romantically involved with the young Spock, and when Vulcan is destroyed, I was thinking, "Uh-oh!" However, it all plays out really well. Pike is promoted to Admiral, James is made Captain of the Enterprise, and Spock . . the old, future, Spock . . goes off to create a Vulcan colony for it's few survivors. The first thing I thought was, "They can go anywhere they want with this now. Whatever happened in TOS doesn't matter anymore . . at least not to this new direction." It was brilliant. It really was. I thought JJ Abrams did a spectacular job with this movie. I really liked the feel and the look of it. I have to admit, there were a couple of slow spots, but . . they didn't last long, and they were all relevant to the story. Also, all the 'new' actors playing the 'old' characters did a tremendous job. Especially Karl Urban, who plays McCoy. His portrayal was spot-on. He was absolutely perfect. I was also impressed with Simon Pegg who plays Scotty. His comments in engineering, and the way he handled the transporter board, really brought back a lot of old memories. They also introduced a new angle with this little alien 'pet' that he has. I thought it was hilarious. Obviously, this movie opens up the franchise again for future projects. And, like I said, the brilliant aspect of this all is, 43 years later, they've set themselves up to start over . . brand new. How perfect is that?

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Twentieth Century Fox

I finally got a chance to go see the new X-Men movie last week. We actually did a double feature where we went to see it, and the new Star Trek movie. But I'll get in to that more later. I have to say, when I saw the trailers for this movie, I thought they looked pretty good. However, I was concerned about the casting of Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth. I just didn't know for sure that he'd be able to pull it off. However, after watching the movie, and just immersing myself into it . . I think he did a pretty decent job. Of course the special affects and CGI helped a lot, but . . you know. Anyways, I went with my wife who liked the first 3 movies, but still doesn't read the comics. To me that's the hard thing about the X-Men books, I'm not sure where to have her start. So, she knows the characters, mostly, but not all of the stories. Kind of the opposite of me. Which I thought was cool because she'd have a different approach to the movie than I would. Afterwards she said the background stories, how they all came together, and Wolverine's origin, was the most interesting to her. Although, for a Wolverine movie, I have to say I thought there was an awful lot left out. I know . . they're on a time limit, but . . I thought there was some important stuff we didn't get to see. Sure the first 15 or 20 minutes are mostly about Logan, but after that . . it could've been called X-Men Origins: Weapon X. And I know that's a big part of Logan's past, but . . it almost presented Sabretooth and Deadpool as more interesting characters. I also didn't like the way, at the end of the movie, that they explain Logan's years of memory loss . . an Adamantium bullet to the forehead by Stryker. I just didn't like that whole explanation. But, having said all that, I have to admit that I'm a person who watches a movie and really gets into it. I just tune out everything around me, and all of life's problems, and just really immerse myself into the story. I don't think about whether a special effect, or stunt is believable, or even realistic. And, in the case of comic-book movies, I try hard not to compare what I'm seeing to what I've read over the years. I want to be completely unbiased when I watch a movie for the first time. So, to that point while my wife said that she enjoyed the whole movie, I have to admit that I got a little bored with it. Like I said, I don't want to compare the movie to what I've read, but . . I've still read it, so I knew most of the story. Yes there was artistic license taken here and there, but . . to me the movie just spent to much time explaining things. I can appreciate how that's necessary, as my wife didn't know this story, but to the informed viewer . . it all dragged on a little to long. Which to me, is why I always consider the sequel to a movie better than the original. Originals always spend so much time explaining things, and giving you the background stories that you don't get a lot of new material or action. However, in the sequels, they generally assume that the viewer saw the first so they're aware of what happened. It doesn't need to be re-explained. Sometimes they do, but . . it's brief. Therefore we get a lot more original story and action. Anyways, overall I have to say, I did like the movie, however, I thought it dragged in spots. I still think Hugh Jackman is fantastic as Logan, and while I was skeptical about Ryan Reynolds . . I really thought the guy pulled off Deadpool. I would enjoy a sequel. And if they're taking votes . . I would definitely vote for a Deadpool movie. Can you imagine it? Fan-frikkin-tastic!

The Soloist - Universal / Dreamworks

I went to see a few movies this week so, I thought I'd jot down some notes on what I thought about them. I'm usually the action/adventure type person . . especially the comic based movies, but my wife really wanted to see this one, so . . I have to give in every now and then. Right? Anyways, this movie is about an LA reporter, Steve Lopez and a homeless man he meets, Nathaniel Ayers. When it comes down to it, these 2 men are in similar situations, although their circumstances are drastically different. Steve is a reporter who, I felt, loved what he did. The problem is, it's a tough living. You're always looking for the next story, and you're only as good as your last one. To make matters worse, he works for his ex-wife. It's not a terrible situation, but . . she's always reminding him about his short-comings . . or at least what she viewed in their marriage. And, with the internet and all, there's always the threat of lay-offs or cut-backs. Basically, he's a prisoner of his job . . corporate America. On the other hand, Nathaniel is schizophrenic and because he can't afford meds or treatment, he ends up homeless. However, he's a music prodigy. And this is what brings him to Steve's attention. He's also doing what he loves . . playing music, but . . when it comes down to it he is also a prisoner. A prisoner of his own mind. To me, there were 2 main struggles in the movie. First Steve isn't looking to care about this person, he just wants a good story . . one that's worth printing. So he starts digging into Nathaniel's past and finds out that he had actually gone to Julliard. He wasn't there long though because that's about the same time that his mind started putting him through turmoil. He still had all of his talent, he just couldn't deal with the people, or the pressure, or any other number of things. And he finds out that his sister is still around. The problem is, it's hard for anyone to get this intimate with someone, learning their personal information, dealing with their ups and downs, and not become personally involved. On the other hand, from Nathaniel's point of view, this is probably the first person that's paid him this much attention in quite a while. Afterall, to most of us, homeless people are invisible. Or we want them to be. Anyways, Nathaniel starts to form an emotional attachment to Steve. Even though he knows that feelings are one of the things he has a hard time dealing with. So now Steve has to deal with the fact that he cares about Nathaniel, even though he didn't want to, and he's formed an attachment, which his ex-wife is all to willing to point out that he's not very good at. With Steve's attention and prodding, Nathaniel begins to hope and dream. Even though he knows that going to take him back down the path of dealing with things he's not ready to deal with. And of course, with all of this raw emotion there ends up being a violent confrontation . . basically Nathaniel attacks Steve out of anger, hurt and frustration. In the end they end up becoming friends, and from what I understand they are right up to this day. The movie had a lot of emotions in it. You like Steve, you hate Steve, you feel sorry for Steve. Nathaniel is a really complex character. He's a character that most of us don't want to deal with, and don't really want to learn anything about. However, once we do . . it's hard not to like the guy. He's a man dealing with a disease, just like a lot of people. His just happens to be more 'in your face'. He doesn't look or act like a 'normal' person. I thought Robert Downey Jr and Jamie Foxx played their parts brilliantly. They were both very believable, and you could feel their angst and frustration throughout the whole movie. My only complaint is that, as a viewer, you're on an emotional roller-coaster throughout the movie. But, that's ok. That's what the movie should do. Where I think the problem lay, is the movie tried to address to many themes. At times it was hard to tell specifically which theme was making you angry, or sad, or frustrated. There was a lot of stuff being thrown at you in this movie. The basic story, I thought, was great. I think it just got a little muddled with all the subtext. But, that being said, I think it's definitely a movie that everyone should see. If for no other reason than for people to realize that homeless people are real people. They aren't any less real than any of us. Their circumstances are just different. And we all need to remember . . " . . there, but for the grace of god . ."