Snack It

   Are you a big snacker at the movies?  I tell you, there needs to be a national investigation on the mark-up of that crap.  Six bucks for a bag of popcorn?  Four bucks for a box of Sourpatch Kids?  Get outta here.  I have to admit, though, I am partial to a blue Icee.  I'm not partial to what it does to my insides.

   And that's my intro to talk about movies.

42

   From Netflix:  This biopic focuses on the relationship between baseball icon Jackie Robinson and Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, who signed Robinson and in 1947 made him the first black Major League Baseball player of the modern era.

   My Take:  I could see this movie going one of two ways.  It would either be an inspiring story of a man who overcame unbelievable odds and lived an inspiring life.  Or, it could get bogged down in the anti-racism message, and fall to pieces.  Ultimately I believe this movie toes that line... but if it had to lean one way, it did lean a little far towards getting bogged down.

   First of all, let me just say that there were wonderful performances from several of the people in this movie.  Harrison Ford especially blew me away.  You could tell he was sold on that character, and trying his best to hide the fact that he is Harrison Ford.  Boseman also played the part really well, and you could tell that the people behind this movie wanted very badly for it to feel like a true epic.

   Unfortunately, this movie died in the writing.  At least, it did for me.  The moment when I decided "nope," was when I saw a father and son sitting in the bleachers at a game.  The son says some terrible, cheesy line like "gee willickers dad!  How many home runs do you think he'll score?" (talking about a relative of theirs).  And the dad replies with the typical cheese response.  Then Robinson comes on the field, and the Dad starts yelling all kinds of slurs and stuff.  The kid looks really uncomfortable, as we slowly zoom in on him, and then  he ultimately succumbs to the rest of the white folks and starts yelling slurs himself.  Now, written there, it sounds like this should be a poignant moment in the film, a telling sign of the times and a deeper glimpse into the continuing racial issues we face today.  But I assure you, it was not.  The acting was so stilted and terrible, it made me physically uncomfortable.  The timing was way off, it just felt sort of amateurish.

   Look, I get it.  There was a lot of racism back then.  This was a defining moment for America's African American population.  This was a big deal.  But if you're going to make a movie about it, do that justice.  There were plenty of opportunities for me to understand the pain and torture Robinson went through.  I don't need you to make a fist out of it and hit me in the face.  RACISM.  I get it.

   I see this being something that started out as a fantastic idea.  A movie that could have gone either way.  A movie that was ultimately handled too much by the studios, who poisoned the message with "MORE RACISM!"  This movie needed people behind it who could tell the studios to shove it.  If Ron Howard had done this movie, we would have had something magical.  Instead that guy is making a movie about... what?  race cars?  Geesh.

Argo

   From Netflix:  In 1979, when Iranian militants seize the American embassy, six Americans slip into the Canadian embassy for protection, prompting the CIA to concoct an elaborate plot to rescue them by pretending that they are filmmakers rather than diplomats.

   My Take:  Oh that Affleck.  I'll be honest, he is the main reason why I didn't watch this movie when it came out.  Oh, I assumed it would be good, that it would be compelling... but Affleck just turned me off.  It's weird, for how awesome Matt Damon turned out, and all the badass movies he has been in, for some reason I just want to punch Ben Affleck in the face.  I don't even know why.  Anyway I heard enough good things about this movie that I ultimately decided I needed to just stomach that and give it a watch.  I'm glad I did.

   The 70s were awesome.  The wardrobe and mustaches in this movie were well worth the price of admission.  What a weird time to live in... I often wonder what the folks from the 60s or 70s would say if they saw the way we live in society today.  But I digress...

   Here was one of those crazy real-life events that beats out any story you could make up in a movie.  An incredibly tense situation where America did some less-than clean things in order to save our own skin.  And a good picture of when another country, Canada (yes it's still a country), really did us a solid.  And then there was Affleck.

   I won't say Affleck ruined the film.  That's too strong.  There were too many other great performances.  And it was expertly directed... I gotta hand it to Affleck that dude can put together a solid movie.  But his acting... well, maybe he should just stay behind the camera.  I don't know, maybe he was trying to portray this real guy.  Maybe the real Mendez was an aloof, I-don't-wanna-be-here kinda guy.  Hard to say.  But that's how Affleck came across.  It was simply not enjoyable to watch.  Everyone else did good, and Affleck wasn't BAD... but he was Affleck.  It makes me wonder if he starred in this movie simply because the only way for him to get a leading role now is for him to direct the movie as well.

   Anyway, "Argo" is a great movie... and even if you're not a huge Affleck fan, I think it's worth your while.  This was a tense time and a different America.  Honestly what those guys were going through back then kinda makes what we're dealing with now pale in comparison.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

   From Netflix:  This sequel returns much of the cast from the Star Trek feature released in 2009, breathing new life into the seemingly ageless space franchise. Led by the intrepid Captain Kirk, the Enterprise crew still includes Scotty, Spock and Chekov as well.

   My Take:  This was a tough one to sell.  The first Star Trek reboot was great because half of it was a casting call.  "Oh, how are they going to do Bones?  What about Spock?"  Blah blah blah.  It just so happened that the story was pretty decent too, and let's not forget about the incredible special effects.  But now that crew is settled in.  We know them.  They can't hide behind "well I'm the new Checkov, gimme a break."  It's go time.  And I have to applaud Abrams and crew for coming out of the gate strong.  SPOILERS ARE AHEAD.  IF YOU PLAN TO SEE THE MOVIE BUT HAVEN'T YET, STOP READING HERE AND GO SEE THE DAMN MOVIE.

   "Into Darkness" hits you right in the face with Kahn, arguably the greatest villain to ever haunt the Star Trek universe.  But, unlike the old Kahn, they took this one in a completely new direction.  I personally thought it was fantastic.  While you could definitely make the argument that it got a little lazy, especially towards the end where they were simply paralleling scenes from the original movie but with their own twist, I believe it was a nice tribute to the original and also kept things quite interesting.

   The action sequences in this movie were fantastic, as expected.  The Klingon fight was great, though maybe a little bit one-sided (I get that Kahn is a supersoldier, but come on, these are Klingons)... and the ship-to-ship fighting was incredible.  I really like the styling and design that this team has come up with for their vision of the future... and I applaud Abrams for (somewhat) limiting the use of lens flares throughout, while still keeping it in his iconic "look."

   But... I wanted more of that, and less of the longing looks, the drama, the ham.  If I had one complaint about this movie, it would be that there was too much of the love story, too much of the emotionally longing looks, too much talk and not enough action.  I wanted to see MORE Klingons, how about a ship-to ship battle there?  I wanted to see MORE of the giant warship that Starfleet had built.  I wanted MORE of a fight with Kahn.  Instead I got a fight between Spock and Uhura, a call to the old Spock which was completely unnecessary, and a punch-you-in-the-face political message.

   Still, as far as sequels go, this one was definitely entertaining.  I appreciate how they are twisting the universe up and changing the way things go.  It was a really good idea, and it's nice to see them taking advantage of this creative license.  The question for me now is, where do we go from here?  Or, more importantly, will we go from here?  

More Than Just Movies...

I've got some TV in here too.  Tricked ya.

The 80's

   When I first saw that the National Geographic channel was creating a series on the 80s, I thought to myself "well, VH1 beat you guys to the punch a while back."  But of course, I was completely wrong.  While VH1's series did have some great moments, it was primarily focused on fads and pop culture.  National Geographic goes at it from a more... adult... direction.

   This is an incredible series about an incredible decade.  The 80s have left a mark on me, partly because I was born there and grew up there, but also because they marked the beginning -- and ending -- of so many eras.  The 80s were, to me, the last decade that had an "identity."  The 60s had hippies, the 70s had disco, and the 80s had... well, lots of things.  Spandex, Reaganites, arcades, music... it was sort of the "best of" before everything went downhill.

   I also think the 80s is when modern technology really started to take off.  Look at video games as an example.  You started with shitty atari games and a world where the only way to play REAL video games was to go burn through quarters at the arcade.  And by the end of that decade we were on the cusp of Super Nintendo, and the first game (in my opinion) that was actually better on console than in the arcade:

cowabunga, motherfuckers.

   The world is completely different now.  Technology has skyrocketed and driven us to a point where nothing has time to establish an identity.  We are too busy rushing on to the next thing.  Will we plateau?  I doubt it... I think it's much more likely we'll screw up and blow ourselves to hell before we stop eating up the technology craze.

   Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Robot & Frank

   From Netflix: Set in the near future, Frank is given a walking, talking humanoid robot programmed to improve his physical and mental health. What follows is an often hilarious and heartwarming story about finding friends and family in the most unexpected places.

   My Take:  You might look at a movie like this and think "no thanks."  I personally love these kinds of movies.  You take a strong actor, and put him in a weird situation, and let the sparks fly.  Here's a guy who is going senile in the future, and instead of putting him in a home, his son brings the home to him -- in the form of a robot.

   Part of it might also be that I can relate to the hard-headedness that Frank displays throughout this movie.  The idea of "I don't need any help" is something I grew up with, and something I believe about myself as well.  And, like in the movie, I find that when I just allow that help, things get much easier and better for everyone involved.

   What I'm not quite sure about is the twist that this movie exhibits.  It could have been a deep story about a family coming together with the help of the robot, but instead they turned it into a heist-style movie.  It's like the screenwriters lost sight of what they were trying to convey with the movie, and unlike some films ("Henry Poole," for example), there was no one holding the reigns to keep it on track.

   It happens.  It was still an enjoyable movie.  It's not for everyone, but if you're interested in this kind of stuff, how technology might shape our future and whatnot, give it a shot.

Surviving Progress

   From Netflix:  This bracing documentary considers whether human "progress" stemming from the Industrial Age could be paving the way for civilization's collapse. The film asks a range of thinkers whether the modern world might be headed for a "progress trap."

   My take:  Hooooo, this is a tough one.  Before I talk about this movie, I think I should set you up with my thoughts on overpopulation.  I believe that Agent Smith was on to something in "The Matrix" when he said humanity more closely resembles a virus than an actual species of animal, in that we spread exponentially with no regard to the environment, food chain, natural way of things, etc.  We just keep popping out babies. And I also believe that this will be our demise.  We are in an age where more and more jobs are being fulfilled by machines, there is less need for human labor, and therefor less ways for humans to make a living.  Our entire economy is founded on the idea that you work so you can make money so you can afford things which other people work for so they can make money so they can afford things and around and around it goes.  If that breaks down, so does our economy, so does our way of life, so does society.  It's definitely a quandary, because I for one am not in favor of controlled populations, birth rules, etc... I mean I want to have kids one day.  But I think we are quickly reaching a point where if we want to survive, we either have to options: control our population, or start spreading out into space.

   Okay, so this movie talks about the overpopulation problem, but also about how the idea of "progress" might not be as good as it sounds.  There were two things I found to be very interesting.  First, it had never occurred to me that all of the advances we've made in medicine, technology, etc, could actually lead to our downfall.  Sure, medicine is letting people live longer -- which from a cold, medical approach is not a good thing.  But the idea that our ipads and smartphones, our processors and wifi, could actually contribute to our downfall.

   This movie put it very well.  They say that for a long time, we were living on mother nature's "interest," which meant that we were using material in such a way that the planet could replenish it at least as fast as we used it.  But in the last couple of decades, we have started to go beyond that and cut into the actual product that nature provides.  We are cutting down trees faster than they can ever hope to be regrown, essentially.  And in the movie they propose that in order for us to get back to an "interest-only" type lifestyle, the human race would have to shrink by two thirds.  Two thirds!  

   The other interesting tie they made was to the concept of debt and how it contributes to society collapse.  They talked about how it used to be the majority of debts were owed to the state, and as such, when debt levels reached a certain point, the state could just hit the "reset" button and start everyone over on equal footing.  The Romans changed all of that by saying "nope, debt is debt."  They then moved forward to present times, where debt is still debt, and how the richest 10% of our population is owed so much money that they are essentially holding the planet hostage.  They also said that this 10% would happily watch the world burn before they would allow those debts to go away.  In other words, it's a Socialist message... but -- and this is coming from a guy who is staunchly anti-socialist -- it was the most compelling argument for socialism that I've ever heard.

   Ultimately, "bracing" is a good word to describe this documentary.  While I usually associate it with words like "enema" for some reason, this documentary definitely opened my eyes and made me think about this whole overpopulation thing from a different perspective.

Django Unchained

   From Netflix:  Accompanied by a German bounty hunter, a freed slave named Django travels across America to free his wife from a sadistic plantation owner. Quentin Tarantino directs this modern-day spaghetti Western.

   My take:  Let me get this straight right off the bat.  I do not like Quentin Tarantino.  I think he's a hack.  Hell, he admits he's a hack.  I think a lot of his movies are over-the-top, ridiculous, and silly.  That said, I do have to admit -- it's obvious that Tarantino and his pals enjoy making the movies they make.  There's something to be said for that, and "Django Unchained" definitely falls within this category.

   It also falls into several others.  Over-the-top comes to mind.  I didn't realize that shooting someone with a shotgun from 15 feet away caused them to explode in a gory goo.  Interesting.  Most of the characters are actually caricatures, but you know what?  It worked.  The acting was actually quite good, and I can definitely see why Christoph Waltz got the award.  He was incredible.

   But like I said, this movie was obviously fun to make.  I know that because it was fun to watch.  It was ridiculous, it was silly, it was explosive, it was WAY bloody... and it was a helluva ride.

   The only thing that worries me is that I think now Tarantino may be reaching a point where he copies himself in his movies.  So is every Tarantino flick now going to end with a ridiculously gory shoot-out that completely breaks the story line?  Are we going to get into a "good guy vs. bad guy" scenario where the entire movie is the good guys trying to track down and finally meet the bad guy in a glorious final battle?  I liked it here, but I'm starting to see a rut form.

   Either way, whether you like or hate Tarantino, "Django" is a good movie to watch on a night when you're bored.  It will liven things up, guaranteed.  It's a fun watch, and surprisingly good underneath all the gore and silly moments.  Enjoy!

Iron Man 3

   From Netflix:  Robert Downey Jr. dons his powerful armor suit again, portraying popular Marvel comic book character industrialist Tony Stark -- aka Iron Man -- who takes on power-mad villains intent on destroying the world.

   My take:  SPOILERS AHEAD.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.  I am a huge, unashamed Iron Man fan.  I had a ton of his comics growing up (I still have them in a closet somewhere).  My brother and I used to play with his action figures.  He was a rare sight and never got the attention he deserved, but he was my favorite.  I loved the idea of a protective suit of armor.  I loved the technology behind the suit, which back in the days of the comic was way ahead of its time.  So when they first announced the movie, I was really excited -- and nervous.  The first two Iron Man movies did not disappoint, and neither did the Avengers movie.  But without Favreau at the helm, and because now it was all tied together (the world of Iron Man and the world of, ugh, Thor, for example)... I was nervous about this third installment.

   I went into this movie with hopes high, mostly because I had heard that the Silver Centurion would be making an appearance in this movie:

  Pimp.

And he did.  I think.  It's hard to say, because what should have been the most awesome part of this movie was actually one of the more disappointing.

   I get that the idea of this movie was Tony Stark coming to grips with his own mortality, with understanding that the man is what makes the man, not some suit of armor, etc etc etc.  But I paid good money to see a guy in a metal suit beat the everliving shit out of some bad guys...  and Tony spends far less time in the suit than he does running around, downtrodden, trying to get back on his feet.  The suit he did have was a giant piece of shit, breaking apart all the time and hardly working.  It was more of a crutch than anything.

   And yet, all of this could have been saved at the end, when the "Iron Army" showed up to beat the hell out of the glowing folks.  When we finally got to that point, I thought "alright here we go."  But man, what a letdown.  First of all, it was at night, so a lot of the brilliance of these suits was hidden.  Second, they all moved so fast that it was impossible to tell which suit was fighting and how.  None of the suits got to exhibit their special powers (like stealth, or asgardian armor) except for the hulkbust -- or, rather the Igor suit, which had... uh... hydraulics?  My point is, this could have been an incredible scene.  Instead it was a shameless ploy to cram more action figures onto store shelves.  By the time they reached this point in the movie, the credits were eager to roll, so it was like they had to just cram it in before time ran out.  It made sense in the movie, but in this nerdy fan's mind, it was a hugely missed opportunity.

   What I LOVED about this movie was how they handled the Mandarin.  I personally thought Iron Man always got the shaft with his bad guys.  He was sort of a B-List hero, so he got second-rate villains like some green dude with "magic rings."  Get outta here.  And when I saw that the Mandarin was going to show up in this movie, I thought to myself "oh shit."  So try to imagine the relief I felt when the Mandarin was exposed as a fake, and the real bad guy was the much more believable Taggart and AIM.  Well played folks, well played indeed.  Add all the smart one-liners from Downey Jr., the funny moments like the "prodigal son" returning only to break into a million pieces, etc, and you had one wild and funny ride.

   Iron Man 3 is not as good as its two predecessors.  It's not as good as The Avengers.  And unfortunately, this may be Robert Downey Jr.'s last play as Tony Stark.  This may be the beginning of the end, at least until the inevitable reboot, but hey you know what?  If that is the case, then I am still happy.  We got four solid movies that all look incredible.  Iron Man was finally done justice.  I'm just glad I was able to see it in my lifetime.

In honor of Cinco de Drinko Mayo, 

Adios Muchachos.