Image © Paramount Pictures.

I can sum it up in one word: AWESOME. The 2009 revamp by the same team of creators and actors set things up nicely to continue the Star Trek franchise into the 21st century, and with this film, director J.J. Abrams and his writers have firmly announced they’ll take second place to no one. This film also shares some important story elements and characters from the second film of the previous era, but re-imagined in great ways to make it seem fresh and familiar at the same time. In fact, that seems to be the miracle that Abrams is able to bring to these characters. Despite a whole new set of actors, some perhaps a little better than others in the roles we know well, there is often a dual feeling of freshness and familiarity throughout the film. I saw some things coming, especially character moments and lines, but only seconds before they arrived, and it made me smile every time. Many other plot elements were unexpected and yet felt perfectly right when they happened. The overall plot is clever, complex and emotionally rich. The effects are wonderful, but never dominated the acting except here and there in moments of battle. Mostly if felt like they were tools to help tell the best and most exciting story possible, as they should be. There are echoes from the franchise’s past everywhere, visually, yet none that interfere with the story or feel dated. It’s really quite a remarkable balance of old and new.

Before this I always thought “Wrath of Kahn” was a film that couldn’t be topped as far as Star Trek movies go. This one may not top it, but comes in a VERY close second. Highly recommended.

Image © Disney.

Disney does not have a great track record with L. Frank Baum’s Oz tales. Their “Return to Oz” had some cool visuals but disappointed me in many ways, including being too dark for the true spirit of Oz to emerge. I hadn’t heard much about this film other than that it was coming, despite being a longtime member of the “International Wizard of Oz Club.” I read one review Friday that seemed mixed, and one from a friend on Facebook that was pretty negative. I was torn about seeing it, but decided that I should. It’s an Oz film. I love Oz. How could I pass it by? So Ellen and I saw it this afternoon.

I went in not expecting too much, and came out feeling I had a good time. It’s billed as a prequel, telling how the man who became the Wizard of Oz got there. The story begins in Kansas in 1905, where we see Oscar Diggs performing his magic act in a small travelling carnival, and not getting along too well, except with the ladies. An angry husband who is also the show’s strong man wants Oscar’s head, but Diggs just manages to escape him in a hot air balloon. A tornado approaches…well, you get the idea. The opening is purposely subdued, black and white and square screen. As in the MGM classic film, it opens up when Oz Diggs arrives in the land with his name, launching dazzling 3D effects and vibrant colors. It’s almost overdone at first, but as the story unfolds, Oz and Oscar both steady down and become more appealing. I felt James Franco did fine in his role, starting out as a suave but uncaring con man, and being changed gradually by his circumstances.

Three witches form an important part of the cast. Only one is familiar at first glance, Glinda, but we meet her last. Before that there are two sisters. One, Theodora, meets Oscar when he first arrives, and helps get him to the Emerald City, where everyone proclaims him as the mighty Wizard who can help them defeat the Wicked Witch. Sister Evanora shows up there too, ostensibly to help, but with her own agenda. Glinda is the one pegged as Wicked in this story, or so Oscar is told as he’s sent off to look for her in the Dark Forest. Of the three actresses in these parts, I thought Michelle Williams was best as Glinda. Mila Kunis as Theodora was not convincing to me either in her original good witch state, or later after things go wrong for her. Rachel Weisz was okay as Evanora except for her British accent, which kept pulling me out of the performance.

There are two CGI characters that befriend Oscar, a flying monkey and a china doll. The monkey is clearly comic relief, and as such I thought worked well. Zach Braff, as his voice, made me laugh a few times, and acted as a good sidekick. The living china doll voiced by Joey King was meant to bring out Oscar’s soft side, and that worked okay, though it did slow things down too much at times. Fortunately there’s enough action and excitement elsewhere to make up for it.

This film could not attempt to get too close the the MGM film visually, they didn’t have the rights for that, but clearly its heart and center is much closer to that film than the books, though things were picked out of the books here and there. Other things were added not from either. There was nothing that I found troubling as an Oz fan, though. The payoff—where Oscar puts together his greatest con ever to take back the Emerald City—was a success in my eyes. In short, I liked the film, as did Ellen. Not a classic perhaps, but certainly an enjoyable journey to a magical place, and a few hours well spent.

Recommended.

Image © From Time To Time Ltd.

Ellen and I watched this film last evening on DVD, and enjoyed it. It’s based on a book I love, the second in the “Green Knowe” series by L.M. Boston, variously titled “The Chimneys of Green Knowe” in England and “The Treasure of Green Knowe” in America. I like all Boston’s books, but the Green Knowe series is her best work. They center on an ancient family home, “Green Knowe” inhabited by Grandmother Oldknow and in some of the books her visiting grandson Tolly. The house is also inhabited by ghosts to those who can sense them, specifically the ghosts of children who once lived there over the centuries, and in this one the focus is on a sea captain and his family of the early 1800s, especially his blind daughter Susan, and an escaped slave Captain Oldknow has brought home to be her companion, Jacob. Susan is often thwarted by her brother and mother as well as the head servant Caxton, all of whom dislike Jacob and the new freedom he brings to Susan, acting as her eyes. The young black youth is tormented by Susan’s brother Sefton, but manages to get the better of him more often than not.

The film handles all this well, but adds an additional storyline, setting the present visit of Tolly to his grandmother in 1944, and having his father lost during battle in World War Two Europe. Worry about Tolly’s father hangs over everyone in the house, adding drama to the film that wasn’t in the book. Tolly soon finds himself not only meeting the ghosts of Susan and Jacob, but traveling back in time to witness key events in their lives, and even taking part in them a little, culminating in a fire that threatens to destroy the house. In the present day, Mrs. Oldknow’s home is also threatened by mounting bills she can’t pay, and may have to be sold. There’s a mystery and a lost treasure that Tolly is soon in pursuit of adding excitement to the story.

Writer/director Julian Fellowes is best known for his film “Gosford Park” and the TV series “Downton Abbey,” neither of which I’ve seen. He’s done a fine job with this film, even where it strays from the book. Perhaps the biggest change is the house itself, much larger and grander than the one in Boston’s books, which are based on her own home, “Hemingford Grey” in Cambridgeshire, England. I’ve visited that house, where her son and his family still live, it’s open for occasional tours, and it’s a unique experience to walk through and see because so much of the books come to life there. Filming in that house would have been impossible, and the mansion used instead works well enough. All the actors and actresses perform well, with Maggie Smith as Mrs. Oldknow capturing top spot in my eyes. The writing, sets, effects, music, all are well done. I think I’d still choose the book over the film, but I like both. If only the film’s title were better, there have been so many with “Time” in them it becomes impossible for any new one to stand out. “The Chimneys of Green Knowe” would have been infinitely better!

Highly recommended.

Tolkien is my all time favorite author, and “The Lord of the Rings” my all-time favorite work of fiction. I consider “The Hobbit” a part of that work, the first act of four I suppose you could say. When Peter Jackson’s film version of LOTR came out I was intrigued and enjoyed parts of it, but found other things troubling, so I had mixed feelings about it, but as the entire trilogy came forth, and better yet the extended versions, I was gradually won over. Yes, there are things Jackson did I didn’t love, but he made a resonant and wonderful epic film overall, and I now consider it a favorite as well.

For this first of three Hobbit films, I went in knowing pretty much what to expect, such as lots of fighting (though the book doesn’t have very much, especially in the first third). That aside, there are many moments that are the book brought to life. Yes, there are some differences in the action and events, but the spirit is there throughout.

With LOTR there was a problem trying to get too much story into even that length of film. With “The Hobbit” it was just the opposite. There was room to add things, and they did. I liked most of what they added. For instance, Gandalf”s fellow wizard Radagast the Brown goes from a mere footnote elsewhere in Tolkien to a large character role here. He’s played a bit silly by Sylvester McCoy, but is entertaining all the same. There are a surprising number of characters from LOTR who reappear in this one. A few did in the book, but Jackson has found ways to get more of them into his new film. I liked that, actually, it helps bring a feeling of continuity, and it was good seeing them again. But the core of the film is carried by new faces: Martin Freeman as young Bilbo, and the thirteen dwarves. There are a few too many dwarves to get to know them all, but I liked their performances, and Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, as complex a portrayal as you could ask for. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is the other core player, and is as great as ever.

Would Tolkien have liked Jackson’s films? I doubt it. But this lifelong fan of the books finds them wonderful in nearly every respect, and I look forward to the rest, and then the exended versions as well.

Recommended.

Image © Disney.

Though the Disney name comes first on the credits, there are many elements of this film that signal Pixar beyond the animation style. Yes, it’s another story about a princess, but beyond that it often diverges from the Disney model. Like other recent Disney heroines, Merida is feisty and talented, and in conflict with her parents over romance and her place in the world of Celtic/Gaelic Scotland. Merida’s talent happens to be archery, and she lives for the rare days when she can escape castle life and ride her giant horse through the forest shooting at targets and enjoying nature. Her parents, especially her mother, have other ideas: they’ve invited the three other clans they’re allied with to present candidates for Merida’s hand in marriage. When the clans and candidates show up, it’s clear there’s no Prince Charming among them, and Merida bests them all in a test of bowmanship, then flees into the forest to escape the whole idea of suitors and marriage.

All that can be seen in the film’s trailers, so I don’t think I’m giving anything away. What happens next is surprising, and not very Disneyish. One of the things I liked best about this film was that it did keep me guessing as to what would happen next, and when Merida gets herself and her family into deep trouble, I had no idea until near the end how they would get out of it.

Another thing that I liked was the music for the film, the original orchestral score by Patrick Doyle, and several songs NOT sung by the characters. I’m uncertain if he wrote those as well, but I saw no other song credits, so I’m guessing he did. Yes, there’s a bit of singing by the mother, but it’s not Disney Musical singing.

There are animals in the film, but they don’t talk, with one brief, humorous exception. Actually, some of the human characters have little or nothing to say as well, including Merida’s three young brothers, though they’re quite entertaining anyway. Merida and her parents have a lot to say, and that keeps the story grounded in family, another thing I liked.

The animation is terrific, as you might expect. I saw it in 2D, by the way, and don’t feel I missed anything. It takes time to establish setting and atmosphere, and though there are some frenetic parts, in general it does not feel as crammed with movement as some other recent films I’ve seen. It has atmosphere.

The film is often quite funny, but the characters all take themselves seriously, as they should, allowing the humor to flow from events, characters, and dialogue rather than jokes, mugging and buffoonery, though there is a helping of visual pratfall and prank humor, mainly from the three brothers..

In all, I loved the film, can’t think of a thing I didn’t like, really. Well done, all, and warm smiles for all the female members of the crew, from writer/co-director Brenda Chapman right through the effects and digital artists.

Highly recommended.

Image © Marvel Studios, Inc.

First off, I enjoyed it! There were times when the enormous amount of visual and auditory information being thrown at me were somewhat overwhelming in the action scenes, but that’s been true for many of the super-hero films I’ve seen in the last decade. There were also lots of fine character moments, witty dialogue, surprise plot twists that made me laugh with delight, and very few if any slow parts, the sign of a good film. The development itself is quite slow, but the ride through it is entertaining, even if somewhat predictable in parts (everyone has to test everyone else, for instance).

Perhaps the biggest difference in the approach is how difficult it is to get everyone on the same page. This is not really much of a team. But that’s true in the comics these days as well, I’ve made the same point in reviews of the new JUSTICE LEAGUE. There are many nice touches, nothing that struck me as really “wrong,” which in a movie of this length, nearly 2.5 hours, is impressive. As said above, the amount of detail is staggering, as the end credits attest: there must be several hundred digital and other artists listed from about a dozen special effects companies. I can see where young people who really want to absorb a lot of that detail (the kind they’re used to in video games for instance) will want to see it more than once.

What would Kirby have thought, I wonder? He also loved putting in lots of detail, in things like machinery or fight scenes or his famous collage pieces. One difference is, there you can take your time and study the art if you like. Hard to do that with a film. Perhaps Kirby would be too old school to get today’s action films, but if you imagine Kirby as a young man today I bet he’d love it (leaving aside the entire credit and compensation question, which is another discussion).

Of the Marvel films working up to this, I missed “Thor,” and I’m kind of sorry now, I liked what I saw of Chris Hemsworth, the actor playing him here. Everyone was quite good in their roles, really. Robert Downey Jr. probably has the best possible role imaginable for a man of his size and build in an action film. And most of the action scenes are all the suit with face shots cut in here and there. The others must envy that somewhat. Though Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk also can take a break when his character hulks up. The main set pieces were all quite well done, from S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters to Tony Stark’s Manhattan skyscraper, and they were all used (and misused) thoroughly, as was midtown Manhattan.

Would I see it again? Not sure, but I’d like to see a sequel, which seems quite certain to happen. I loved the possible upcoming villain for the sequel teased in the clip during the credits. (The other tease at the very end was okay, but not really worth the wait I thought.)

Recommended.

© Disney.

After having recently reread the first three of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ “Mars” books, I found this film an interesting stew, and I enjoyed it a lot. There’s little in the film plot that follows the books closely, but the broad outlines are there. Often the film adds things that aren’t in the books but probably would have improved them, things like more of a back story on Earth for John, an underlying method and reason for his sudden transfers to and from Mars, and more. The main characters all felt right, even where they differed. In the books, Carter is a man who loves to fight, and that might have worked in the era of Douglas Fairbanks, but today a reluctant warrior is more believable to me. In the books, Deja Thoris is smart and brave, but mostly ends up being a beautiful pawn for men to fight over. In the film she’s a fine warrior herself, and a scientist to boot. Yes, at times she’s a political pawn, but never willingly. Other characters worked fine for me, including the Green Martians and all the Martian beasts. The effects are seamless and believable. There were a few moments here and there where I noticed things moving a bit mechanically, but mostly you just believe it’s real.

Elements from the later books work their way into this one, but all in ways I thought effective. The one trick I’m not sure I like is worked by the Therns, the all-powerful behind-the-scenes controllers of Mars in this film (they’re less powerful in the books). The trick is being able to take on the appearance of any person. This seems a bit too modern an idea for the story, and adds doubt at times as to who is real and who is a disguised Thern, edging into “Matrix” territory.

On the whole, though, I liked it all. I can’t say I really loved it, but I’d certainly go see it again and would not miss any sequel. Recommended.

Less than a month ago I finished reading a fine book for younger readers, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” and gave it a glowing review. I’m happy to now be able to do the same for the film version, which Ellen and I saw yesterday.

Martin Scorsese has made a film that is quite faithful to the book by Brian Selznick, while enhancing that work in all the ways possible in a film. Visually it’s a rich, enveloping experience, drawing you into the world of Hugo Cabret: a huge, Baroque Paris train station in the 1920s. The sets, costumes and effects are wonderful. The cast is equally fine, highlighted by the star turns of Ben Kingsley as the toymaker, Asa Butterfield as the boy Hugo, and Sacha Baron Cohen as the stationmaster. The latter role has been expanded to take advantage of Cohen’s acting and comedic abilities, but in a way that fits perfectly into the story. Other characters have somewhat larger roles, including the other shop owners in the train station, and one character is missing: the boyfriend of the girl who befriends Hugo. No loss, and it gives a nice character part for Christopher Lee to fill in a few bits of plot.

The film develops a bit slowly at times, but I never felt bored or impatient. There were always great things to look at in every scene, and the slower pace gave me time to do that. The subplots involving a mechanical man or automaton, and pioneer filmmaker Georges Meliés were both handled with great care and obviously the love of Scorsese and everyone involved. The clockwork theme was artful and never overdone. The emotional story came through very well, with each character developing in our interest and involvement, until each found something they were looking for, even if they didn’t know what it might be. And there’s plenty of suspense and mystery as well, including some cool action including chases through the station and its secret passageways, plus an amazing train wreck. Really a fine film all around. I urge you to see it before it disappears!

Image © Marvel Comics/Paramount.

I have to admit I’ve read very little of the Golden Age CAPTAIN AMERICA comics, probably only his first origin story. I know the character from his rebirth in the Marvel Comics of the 1960s and beyond. Still, I feel I have some knowledge of the character and his origins, and I found this film version handled them quite well. By necessity, it’s a condensed version, but the main characters and story points are there, as far as I can recall, though with some additions and changes. Chris Evans is good as Steve Rogers/Captain America, and plays it with a nice balance of emotions: brave and confident at times, unsure and vulnerable at others, especially around women. The female lead, Hayley Atwell playing Peggy Carter is one I don’t know from the comics, she may be a new character, but she makes a good foil and contrast to all the men in the story, and holds her own well. Tommy Lee Jones is great as the army colonel, and Hugo Weaving is excellent as the Red Skull, both in the red skull costume and out of it. The plot point that gives him an origin similar to that of Captain America is new, I think, but it gave the plot a nice symmetry, and also gave the two a personal reason to clash that made sense. Other Marvel characters had good supporting roles: Howard Stark (father of Tony Stark, Iron Man I assume), and Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. The latter weren’t named, and while I recognized most of them, I kept looking for Sgt. Fury. Finally I remembered him being played by Samuel Jackson in one of the other films (“Iron Man”?), and there he was all along. I can understand the reason for the casting, but visually it’s a stretch I didn’t make for a while.

Perhaps the oddest visual effect of the film was in the body and physique of Steve Rogers. He’s shown in the opening as a small, thin weakling, and I bought that completely. Then, after his transformation into Captain America by the magic serum, he’s built like a wrestler or weight-lifter for the rest of the film. One of those things had to be an effect, and I can only assume the early version was someone else’s body with the actor’s head digitally attached. If so, it was quite convincing.

Stan Lee has his usual cameo, and it’s a good one-liner. The World War Two setting, costumes and acting were all successful, and there’s even a cheesy musical number that manages to fit in well. The evolution of the character and costume are also well done, if differently from the comics, and the payoff at the end that brings the story into the present day worked for me, but only because I know it’s leading toward the next film, “The Avengers.” Otherwise it’s rather an abrupt ending. It was nice to see Joe Simon and Jack Kirby get their rightful creator credit at the end, too. And I love the fact that the movie logo is derived almost completely from the logo of the very first comic:

Well done, Marvel!

In all, I liked the film a lot, and recommend it.

Yesterday evening, after leaving Philly Comicon and having something to eat, I took a cab to a theater showing “Green Lantern,” which opened today, and caught an 8:20 show, not in 3D. While I haven’t read any reviews yet, I see on Facebook that some critics are panning it, but I thought it was a fine superhero movie and enjoyed it thoroughly. It didn’t have the emotional impact for me that the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie did, that’s still my favorite comics-to-film experience, but I’d put it up there with the Spider-Man movies as fun and exciting adaptations of characters I like. Ryan Reynolds was fine in the lead role, in fact I thought he brought more to Hal Jordan as a character than I usually see in the comics, where Hal tends to be rather bland for me. The rest of the cast did fine as well, with Blake Lively doing well as Carol Ferris, and Mark Strong impressive as Sinestro (not yet turned evil, but still rather prickly).

Visually, I thought everything worked well. I like the costume in the film better than I thought I would from seeing photos, I think it’s a fine update, and the effects were good throughout. Good enough that I rarely stopped to think about them, just accepted them, which is probably the best thing you can say. Nothing mindblowingly new or unusual, but well done and well integrated. The scenes on Oa were quite cool. The filmmakers even managed to make the Guardians impressive by hiding their short bodies under very long red robes, and keeping them sitting on their council seats nearly all the time. The other Corps members with speaking parts were Abin Sur, Tomar Re and Kilowog, all done well, mostly CGI though, which allowed Sinestro to out-act them, as he was largely in makeup and not CGI. Digital characters are getting better, but still can’t quite act as well as real people in my opinion.

The storyline drew from the comics at times, enough to make this longtime fan happy, but changed things where it made sense for a film. Hector Hammond’s backstory is quite different from the comics, for instance, but he ends up filling much the same role as in the comics, with the added twist of a connection to Parallax, the essence of fear. Parallax is the main villain/evil force in the film, and handled in a way that ties all the elements of Hal Jordan’s story together well, though played differently from the comics. There was plenty of action, and also time for Hal to find out about his new role, travel to Oa, get some training there, and have some fun with his new powers before things get too serious. And in the early part of the film, Hal’s backstory is handled well, too. Finally, at the end, during the credits, there’s a nice topper setting up a sequel that you should stay for, if you go.

Oh, and as a logo guy, I have to give a thumbs up to the movie logo seen above. Much more interesting than the usual superhero film logo, it draws elements from some of the comics versions by designers Alex Jay and Daniel Gelon without being real close to either. Nice job.

Forget the other reviews, if you’re a Green Lantern fan, or just a fan of superhero films in general, you’ll enjoy this one. Recommended!