Ocean Heaven (2010)

          In my English class last semester, we had to choose a movie playing at International Cinema and write a review about it.  So here it is.

Ocean Heaven (2010)

An Average Story of a Father and his Son

  The premise of Ocean Heaven looks like a very promising tear-jerker: A father with a terminal illness, awaiting his own death, must find a way for his autistic son to survive on his own. And it stars Jet Li as the father. However, while someone would expect a powerful film, Ocean Heaven does not really pack a punch.

          Don’t get me wrong, Ocean Heaven is a decent film, just not as moving as I anticipated. The film is about Wang (played by Jet Li) who works at an aquarium. Wang is a widower who takes care of his twenty-two year old autistic son, Dafu (portrayed by Zhang Wen). After finding out that he is suffering from a terminal illness, Wang must find a place where Dafu will be taken care of after he dies. It seems like compelling stuff, but the whole movie is subtle and does not really invoke any strong emotions. And I think that is partly because of the script and partly due to the restrained acting. There are some tender moments between the father and his son. There are also some hard moments. But these are all small; there are no big, emotional scenes that most drama movies of this kind normally have. There are no dramatic hospital scenes, no powerful “I love you” moments. The emotions are pretty much low-key here. I could see and understand why this situation would be hard on Wang; but, I never felt his struggles.

          The script could have also benefited from some more revisions. There are a few plot points and scenes that feel a little out of place. The opening scene sets you up for one type of movie, but fails to follow that, taking you in a totally different direction. The beginning brings up some interesting ideas and questions, but the rest of the film never pursues or examines them. It is almost as if it never happened.

          And just like how there is no follow up to the opening scene, there is no build up to the ending. I do not want to give anything away (though, the movie is fairly predictable with no real surprises) but the ending involves a sea turtle. But I do not think we ever see a sea turtle before then. Sea turtles actually play a pretty big part in the ending of the film, but it comes as kind of a shock because it appears so random. The guy works at an aquarium; I imagine it would have been fairly easy to insert a scene early in the movie, introducing the idea of the sea turtle. But, there is none; so the ending is a little weird and not as compelling as it could have been.

          The same thing applies to the mother. Early in the film, it is established that she died when Dafu was still a young boy; but, it leaves it at that. Later in the movie, some more information is revealed about the mother’s death. But, because she is basically absent from the whole movie (there may have been one flashback), this revelation has little impact.

          But, like I have said, Ocean Heaven is worth watching. The actors do a good job. This is Jet Li’s first main role outside of the action genre. He trades in his lightning fast hands for a pair of glasses and a blue jumpsuit. Li plays an average man who works hard and wants the best for his son; and he pulls it off pretty well. Zhang Wen also is believable in his role of Li’s autistic son. I have not spent any time with autistic children, so I do not know how “realistic” his portrayal was; but I bought it. (Though, the hand thing seemed a little weird to me.) All of the supporting actors are also convincing in their roles.

          It does bring up some interesting points about our society. Whose responsibility is it to watch after and take care of a person with a mental disability when he has no family members? Dafu is twenty-two years old with no mother and a dying father; and all of the institutions that Wang visits are unable to accept Dafu. Wang tries to teach him how to take care of himself; but without external support, it does not appear to be enough. Should the government institutionalize him? Should the community get involved? Who should be responsible?

          It is interesting to see what points and themes are brought up, considering that the writer and director, Xiao Lu Xue, had previously volunteered for fourteen years at an organization for autistic children. Ocean Heaven is her directorial debut. Her only previous film credit was writer of Together (2002), which was also about the relationship between a father and his son.

          While not as moving as expected, Ocean Heaven is good film. It has a strong story with honest acting; but, everything was too subtle to really stir me. But, it is worth watching. I give it three out of five.

But that's just my opinion...

Iron Man 3 (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Iron Man takes all of my money again.  This is the first Marvel movie to come out since The Avengers and it will be interesting to see where they take things.  And this movie review is full of spoilers.

          And considering this takes place in a post Avengers world, I didn't feel there was a strong enough connection between the two.  There are a few references to the events; but it mostly consists of Tony Stark not being able to sleep and having a panic attack whenever somebody asks him about New York.  I was expecting something stronger, something that would tie in with the plot of Iron Man 3; but no.  But, before I started writing this, I read a few reviews and they better explained the connections.  They explained that War Machine being changed to Iron Patriot was a response to Captain America and superheroes (not the government) saving the world and how his perspective of what really matters changed after what happened in The Avengers.  These things are hinted and while I didn't pick these up during the movie, now knowing them makes me like the movie a little better.

          But my two biggest complaints were about the plot.  The movie starts off with an obvious set-up for a revenge flick:  Tony Stark disses some loser, said loser becomes cool and powerful, he then seeks revenge on Tony.  Lame and unoriginal.  (Though, most movies are unoriginal; but they could've done better than  that).  It just didn't work for me.  (Now that I think about, the plot for Iron Man 2 also was a revenge one, but that worked).  I didn't feel it was a strong enough motive for the villain.

          And I didn't like what they did with the Mandarin.  I'm not comic book fan; nor did I know who the Mandarin was before this movie came out.  But I did not like how they made him a phony.  I imagine that some people would feel the same way about this as they did about Bane in TDKR.  They make him appear all awesome and badass, but it turns out he's just a drunk actor?  That's lame and really disappointing.  I could see how that could work, but not in Iron Man 3.  It is an interesting concept and would be cool to see, but don't do it in a superhero movie.  I really wanted to see Iron Man face the Mandarin.

          The rest of the things are just mild complaints.  I didn't like how they changed Pepper into the fire thing only to change her back two seconds later.  If you're going to kill her, kill her.  If you are going to changer her, change her.  But don't do a "just kidding, she's not really dead" and immediately follow it with a "just kidding again, she's not going to be a fire thing."  Just pick one and go with it.  Have Iron Patriot save her or something.

          But, one of my favorite parts of the movie involved Pepper.  That was when Tony's house gets blown up and he activates his armor.  You think it is going to him, but instead it attaches to Pepper and saves her.  I thought that moment was moving and revealing of Tony's character.  And was a cool moment.

          At first, I thought the part with all of the Iron Man suits was kind of corny.  I saw that in the trailer and was dreading it.  It was a little silly at first, but then you get caught up in the excitement of the scene and go with it.  And it was cool to see some new technology that Tony had created.

          And what is up with the extreme fire guys?  How come some die by a single gun shot, whereas others get shot multiple times without stopping?  And how is it that some of them get killed by a laser gun but others have to be blown up multiple times before they are stopped.  And is he breathing fire?

          And why didn't Tony remove the shards in his heart in the first movie, after he got out of the cave?  He had access to a hospital then

          But overall it was a really good movie.  The action was great.  The acting was good.  I really liked Ben Kingsley.  It was also really funny.  It had a kid in it that wasn't annoying.  I might have to say I may have liked this one better than the first.  It is a close call...

     But that's just my opinion...

Les Misérables (2012)

          Essential plot rundown:  Wolverine and Catwoman sing in France.  So this was based on a musical that was based on a book that was based on a Saturday morning cartoon.  I went in with high hopes for this movie, but I left disappointed and bored.

          Les Misérables probably has to be the biggest let down I've seen in a while.  It was nominated/won some things and I've only heard good things about it.  But, halfway through the movie I was bored and wondering when it was going to be over.

          I think the biggest problem was that I didn't connect with any of the characters.  I didn't feel for them or care for them.  I think that that may have been because there is no dialogue; it is all musical numbers.  And I have a hard time understand people when they sing, so I didn't know what they were singing about.  Maybe if they had speaking lines like most musicals do, I may have connected better with them.

          And speaking of the musicals, I though they were kind of meh.  None of them were memorable; none of them stood out.  The songs weren't bad, they just weren't particular good.  But I though all of the actors did a good job singing.  Crowe's singing took a little to get used to, but it was good.  And I thought the little kids did really good as well, not only with their singing but with their acting too.  I thought they both were really good all around.

          I also felt that Sacha Baron Cohen's and Helena Bonham Carter's characters were distracting.  I know they were suppose to be comic relief or whatever, but it didn't work for me.  Whenever they were on screen it took me out of the movie.  I have a hard time taking Sacha Baron Cohen seriously.  (I also didn't like him in Hugo).

          And the love story felt extremely forced.  Cosette and Marius falling in love after only seeing each other from a distance?  Give me a break.  They only talked to each other for like five minutes.  I felt Éponine's love was more genuine.

          And why didn't people move farther away?  People are always constantly moving, trying not to get caught, but they only move like four blocks away.  If they really wanted to escape why don't they move to a different country?

          But it wasn't all bad.  Like I said, I liked most of the actors.  And I thought the cinematography was really good.  I liked the close-ups with the shallow depth of field.  And I liked how things were composed.  It was a good looking film.

          But, overall, it was an ok movie.  I didn't care for what was happening on screen, but it sure did look good.  Would it be weird to say that I was more moved by Source Code than this?

     But that's just my opinion...

TRON and The Thing: Changes in Film Technology from 1982 to 2011

          So, it is the end of the semester, that mean research papers.  And since my major is Media Arts, all of my papers are movie related.  So, I'll probably be posting them on the blog.  They're longer, ranging from 7 to 10 pages; so you don't have to read them.  But they'll be here if you want.

          This first one is a paper I co-wrote with a classmate about changes in film technology in regards to SFX.  He wrote about the TRON franchise and I wrote about The Thing movies.  We then put them together.

TRON and The Thing:

Changes in Film Technology from 1982 to 2011

          The study of the history of cinema rests upon four pillars: aesthetics, sociology, economic and technology. Every work of cinema both influences and is influenced by each pillar, and the pillars intertwine to affect each other. For instance, technological advances create new and unique aesthetics and are informed by social demand and industry prices. A careful comparison of films divided by decades reveals the shifts in filmmaking technology that have occurred. An effective means of comparison involves appraising the differences and similarities between movies in the same franchises between which many years of technological advancement have elapsed. Comparison and contrast of special effects in the 1982 film TRON with its 2010 sequel TRON: Legacy and the The Thing (1982) with its 2011 prequel by the same name indicates the clear and drastic shifts in the technological pillar over the 28 years that divide the films.

          TRON is about a computer programmer who is digitized and transferred inside the mainframe of his company’s computer.  Once inside the computer, he must find a way to escape.  The sequel follows the programmer’s son as he enters the computer in search of his father several years later.  By taking place inside of a computer, TRON was an ideal film to explore the possibilities of computer generated effects.

          The 1982 film TRON and its 2010 sequel TRON: Legacy are stylistically similar in their visual aesthetics by intentional design. However, the areas where the aesthetics differ between the two films indicate clear shifts in film technology, mainly in post-production computer graphics and compositing technology.

          The 1982 film TRON remains a milestone in the history of computer-generated imaging, as it pushed the boundaries of the cutting edge of computer imaging and pioneered new technologies that became the foundation for modern practices.  It was one of the first movies to rely extensively on CGI.  The imaging computer used to create scenes such as the light cycle sequence was the size of a washing machine and used two MB of processing data on a drive with 330MB capacity – figures archaic and minimal by today’s standards, but state-of-the-art at the time of the TRON’s production.  In reference to the limitation of their computer, scene programmer, Christ Wedge, recalls, “Our system couldn't hold enough data for us to resolve much stuff in the distance.  We had a fog function that would track along, and at a certain distance, we would start mixing in black to fade things out. We called it ‘depth cueing.’ Richard Taylor used to say, ‘When it doubt, black it out!’” (“Tron Then and Now”).  The predominantly black environment in which the heterotopic story-arc transpires became an identifying characteristic of the Tron franchise by technological necessity, but the look carried over into the 2010 sequel to maintain stylistic consistency.

          The post-production procedure was a tedious and time-consuming process. Effects animator John Van Vliet recalls the hours of painstaking frame-by frame animation and compositing:  “[TRON] was a curious hybrid of live action, CG, and hand animation. Every frame of live action had to be blown up to animation-sized cels, color tinted with mattes, have hand-drawn animation added, and then composited under a huge camera” (“Tron Then and Now”). Whereas the computer technology of 1982 required frame-by-frame matte painting and manual compositing, the 2011 picture utilized blue screen technology consistently to composite digital imaging with live action.  Director Joseph Kosinski and his team knew they would be pushing the boundaries of what current effects technology can achieve to make Legacy in the spirit of TRON. The result is a complicated blend of techniques, from blue screen to 3D cameras, that Kosinski and his team melded together for the film.

          TRON: Legacy’s post-production supervisor Eric Barba claims that the matte painting techniques would have made the overall look of the film, including its exhibition in 3D real-D, quite impossible to achieve. “The cityscape of The Grid traditionally would have been matte paintings, but in a 3D movie other 3D elements won't look right with a flat matte painting. You can't cheat like that. We had to project everything onto geometry with scenes built to the correct scale and depth’" (quoted in Bunish). The advances in filmmaking technology over the 30 years since the original minimized, if not eliminated, the limitations on scope inherent in the original.

          Comparison of the costume design of the two films is indicative of the magnitude of the advances in technology over the three decades that divide them. In both films, the suits worn by programs within the TRON system exhibit glowing electronic circuitry, and the faces of the characters while in the program are colored and illuminated. The techniques used to accomplish this coloration differ between the two films due to advances in computer imaging and practical effects. According to Alex Santoso, one of 41 ink and paint artists employed on the crew of the 1982 original, “The glowing circuitry on the character's costumes… were hand-painted onto each frame” (Santoso). By contrast, in the 2010 sequel, the costume designers engineered cutting-edge suites that illuminated themselves with self-contained power and fluorescent light strips flexible enough for high levels of physical motion in thick foam suits. Christine Clark, the film’s associate costume designer, revealed in an interview with “Popular Mechanics” that “we used seven little tiny lithium-ion batteries, together about the size of a deck of cards, for each inverter. And this is all buried inside the hubs in the identity discs on the backs of the suits… and then we would lay the lights into little channels in the foam suits and secure them with Velcro” (Clark). This was accomplished practically due to the fact that the film was shot and screened in 3D, which would have made the frame-by-frame post-production painting very difficult in dual-optic visual effects.

          Another film franchise that similarly demonstrates changes in film technology over the past three decades is John Carpenter’s The Thing, released in 1982, and its prequel of the same name, The Thing, which was released in 2011.  Similar to TRON, about twenty-eight years passed between each installment, and because of this, the two movies use very different technologies to bring the title creature to life, with each technology adding to the overall aesthetic of the film.

          John Carpenter’s The Thing is a remake of 1951’s The Thing From Another World, which in turn was based on a novella by  John W. Campbell, Jr., called “Who Goes There?”  The basic story involves an alien ship crash landing Antarctica, where it is dug up by a team of scientists.  Once uncovered, the alien turns out to be a shapeshifter and begins assimilated members in the group until it is finally defeated in the end.  However, in Carpenter’s film, the alien is originally discovered by a Norwegian team prior to the start, then makes its way to the American camp.

          We could even look back to the 1951 production to see an even wider change in technology.  The alien portrayed in the earliest version is merely an actor in a suit; the filmmakers did not have the technology to depict the alien actually changing its form.  However, with advances in technology, John Carpenter was able to show one thirty years later.  Rob Bottin, head of the special effects team, used animatronics and puppetry to bring the creature to life.  Robert Zak, a freelance writer, wrote that The Thing “represents the pinnacle of prosthetic and animatronic-based special effects in horror films” (Zak).

          There are several scenes where the alien, disguised as a human or a dog, begins to change and ruptures to reveal the monstrous alien.  Once such scene occurs when one of the characters, Norris, goes into cardiac arrest.  The doctor attempts to use a defibrillator on him, only to have Norris’s chest burst open like a mouth and bite the doctor’s arms off.  A second head then emerges from the chest, rising up into the air.  The first head detaches itself from the body, sprouts legs and tries to escape.  Luckily, the protagonist is able to kill it with a flamethrower.

          There were several techniques used to accomplish this  horrendous scene.  The first thing that had to be done was to replicate the actor.  A reproduction of the head was sculpted into clay, a mold was taken and filled with latex, finalizing with a fake head controlled by a puppeteer.  Another puppeteer pushed on a rod, that ran hidden through the fake body, that forced the head away and off of the torso.  Other workers controlled the chest/mouth mechanism.  A double amputee was used as a body double for the doctor.  Fake arms were attached to the actor’s stumps, which were then ripped off by the mouth mechanism.  To accomplish the detached head trying to escape, a fake head was attached to a remote control car, that, when drove, moved the legs.

          Because all of the effects were mechanical, they had a specific aesthetic to them.  All of the effects were very limited in movement.  When the second head grows from the chest, the audience sees the body shaking, then it cuts to a reaction shot of one of the researchers, and when it cuts back, the new appendage has fully sprouted.  The audience never actually sees the head emerge.  There are multiple scenes where the film cuts away and then back to reveal a person farther along in a mutation.  Also, the movements of the alien themselves are distinguished.  Zak also wrote, “The jerky, twitchy movements do look mechanical, but then the human body essentially is mechanical” (Zak).  Because of the limitations and physics of the puppets, the creature has a distinct feel to it.

           Twenty nine years later, the prequel was released, which primarily used computer-generated imaging.  However, in between the two films, Jurassic Park came out, which relied heavily on the combination of practical effects and complex computer-generated imagery and ushered in a new wave of special effects.  From that point forward, CGI has become a norm for movie special effects.

          2011’s The Thing is a prequel to John Carpenter's version, depicting what happened at the Norwegian camp.  The alien shown here was done with computer effects.  To accomplish these, a team of animators would use computer software to design the look of the creature, decide how it was going to move and change, and adjust textures, layers and lighting, and finally composite it into the final sequence.  There were two groups of animators, one working on things like blood and slime and the other animated the transformations themselves.  And similar to Carpenter’s version, the creature here splits open, changes and sprouts new limbs.  The animators were also able to put actual footage of an actor’s head onto the alien’s CG body, instead of having to “sculpt” a head like Bottin’s team did.  They even had a CG alien merge its face into the head of an actor, combining them into one creature, which would have been impossible using puppetry.  However, because these were all done inside the computer, they were not limited in the ways that Bottin’s practical effects were.  The alien was free to move and change as it wanted to.  And because the alien was no longer restrained in what it could do, it had a different feel to it than the previous version.

          While the Thing in the 1982 film only showed part or simple transformations, the prequel was able to show everything.  Instead of cutting between reaction shots and progressively more mutated animatronics, the prequel depicted the complete change in shape.  A human character would suddenly grow monstrous legs out of its torso and begin to walk around.  And while the practical version was limited in movement, the CG version was free to do whatever the animators could think of.  There are several scenes in which the creature chases people around the compound, even jumping through a window to get them.  All of these movements would have been extremely hard to achieve with practical effects.  Zak described the effects as “fast” and “fluid” and that the alien can sprout any number of limbs “with ease” (Zak).

          These two films demonstrate a major shift in film technology.  John Carpenter’s version relied on practical effects.  Because of this, they were limited in the creature’s movements and the amount of mutations actually shown.  On the other hand, the prequel primarily used computer-generated imagery.  And because of this, the creature was free to move, run, change,  and sprout all it wanted to.  These two different technologies also lend themselves to the overall aesthetic of their respective films.

          The dramatic advances in filmmaking technology over the past three decades as indicated by the TRON and The Thing franchises illustrate the awe-inspiring rapidity of technological development. One must only observe the trajectory at which the technological world is evolving to extrapolate the future sophistication of the visual effects industry, which excites practitioners and audience members alike. The technology with which filmmakers accomplish ‘movie magic’ will continue to develop and progress as the medium moves into the brightness of the future.

Bibliography

     "Jurassic Park (film)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Sept. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

     "The Incredible Effects of The Thing." Cinefantastique n.d.: n. pag. Outpost31.com. Outpost 31. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

     "The Thing (1982)." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.

     "The Thing." Imagine-engine.com. Image Engine, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.

     "Who Goes There?" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

Works Cited

     "Tron Then and Now." Creativeplanetnetwork.com. Creative Planet Network, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

     Bunish, Christine. "Digital Domain Creates a 21st-Century Tron: Legacy."Markeemagazine.com. Markee 2.0, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

     Clark, Christine. "Creating Tron: Legacy's Lightsuits." Interview by Erin McCarthy.Popularmechanics.com. Popular Mechanics, 9 Dec. 2010. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

     Santoso, Alex. "10 Neat Facts About Tron." Neatorama.com. Neatorama, 28 June 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

     Zak, Robert. "Modern Horror: Lay off the CGI and Bring Back Prosthetics."Blogs.independent.co.uk. The Independent Blogs, 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.

G.I. Joes: Retaliation (2013)

Finally, Cobra Commander looks cool.

          Essential plot rundown:  The GI Joes must stop Cobra from conquering the world in this rebootish sequel.  So this movie was suppose to come out about a year ago, but they decided to delay it to add more Magic Mike and 3D.  Who would have thought that Channing Tatum would have become such a hot item between these two movies?

          So, the question on everyone's mind is: is this better than the first?  Yes, yes it is.  It is a completely different movie.  The tone is a lot better; it is more actiony and less cartoony than its predecessor.  It felt more like a GI Joes movie.  The nature of the team itself has completely changed.  Instead of a huge international organization with a silly underground headquarters, the Joes are portrayed as a covert group, more like the SEALS or something.  There are only a handful of returning characters.  (Wait, Stormshadow is alive?)  And the only real connection, story-wise, to the first is Cobra Commander is being held captive and Zartan is the president.  Pretty much everything else has been wiped clean.

          And while that sounds all good and dandy, GI Joes: Retaliation isn't perfect.  (Surprising, I know).  One thing that seemed odd to me was that Cobra had their logo on everything!  Briefcases, motorcycles, satellites, pins, everywhere.  It just seemed a little conspicuous, considering that Cobra is a terrorist organization.

          And there was too much ninja stuff going on.  Snake-Eyes is out on his own, doing ninja stuff and everytime it would cut back to him, it took me out of the movie.  All of those scenes didn't really mesh well with the rest of the movie.  He should have just stayed with the Joes and those scenes scrapped.  And they screwed up Stormshadow.  They reveal some stuff about his backstory which weakens his character, doesn't add anything to the movie and, frankly, doesn't make any sense.  So, that was lame.

          I also wanted more.  The whole time I was thinking, I want more Bruce Willis. I want more Cobra Commander.  I want more Firefly.  I want more cool vehicles and stuff.  I really enjoyed the movie, but it left me wanting more, and not in the good way.  At the moment, I'm not excited for an another sequel; I just wanted more in this one.

          But, overall, it was a fun movie.  There was some cool stuff and ideas.  I really liked the scene where the president meets with the other world leaders.  So, yea, check it out if you want.

     But that's just my opinion...

Iron Man 2 (2010)

          Essential plot rundown:  Iron Man has to deal with the government, a communist and some lead poisoning.  So, I wanted to watch this when I re-watched everything for The Avengers, but I never got around to it.  But, we watched Iron Man in my class yesterday so it re-sparked an interest.

          Iron Man 2 is not nearly as good as Iron Man 1.  It is not as funny.  It doesn't have as much heart.  The soundtrack is not as awesome.  And it has a lot more problems.  And it is those problems that I will primarily be addressing.

          The whole War Machine thing bothered me.  First of all, I preferred Terrence Howard over Don Cheadle; for some reason, I'm not a big fan Don Cheadle.  And how did Rhodey get access to the suits?  Tony must have given him some kind of clearance to get into his basement (because we see him using codes to get in), but access to a suit?  And when did he learn how to operate it?  It doesn't make sense.  And that fight scene was kind of weird.

          And then he just steals the suit?  What a dick.  And then he hands it over to Hammer so he can "weaponize" it?  Isn't it already weaponized?  Isn't that why the government wanted it?  What's the point of putting a gun on another gun?  It seemed a little redundant to me.  And then he presents at the Stark Expo?  It's like stealing a Big Mac, putting some bacon on it and advertising at a McDonald's convention.  It doesn't work.

          And why didn't Ivan Vanko die in the beginning?  He gets hit by a car multiple times and then Iron Man punches him in the face.  Does having an arc reactor give his super strength?

          And what about the poison?  Other than dying, it doesn't really add anything to the plot.  Everybody just sits around saying how bad it is.  But it doesn't really affect him.  And then he easily creates a new element right after JARVIS said he couldn't?  Why does JARVIS say he can't do it when, in the very next scene, he does?

          And I didn't care much for Agent Fury.  They should have just shown him once and then left him out.  Just have Iron Man interact with the hot chick and the cool guy.

          And how can Vanko transform suits into drones?  The only thing he does is replace the helmet with a remote control.

          And how many paragraphs can I start with the word 'and'?

          So, overall it is an ok film.  It's not bad, it has some good action sequences.  But it pales in comparison to the original.  But, the third one looks pretty badass; so, I'm excited for that.

     But that's just my opinion...

The Reward (2013)

          So, this is a pretty sweet animated short.  It's good and I liked the ending; good moral.  But yea, enough of me; go watch it.

     Watch it right HERE!

          But, seriously; go watch it.  And they are trying to get funding to make it into a feature film.  So thats' cool too.

     But that's just my opinion...

The Iron Giant (1999)

          Essential plot rundown:  A boy must protect a giant robot from the government.  I watched this in my class yesterday.  And I guess it's based on a book.

          This is a really good movie.  Probably one of the best things about it is that it can appeal to both kids and adults.  It is not a childish cartoon.  It has a good story and it also has some pretty good themes and messages.  (Though, I felt like it's "anti-gun" moral was a little heavy handed.)  Other than that everything was handled pretty well.

          Like I said, the story is pretty solid, though not entirely original.  It's pretty funny, there are some good one liners and comic timing; it's also a little moving.  (I may or may not have gotten a little teary eyed...)  The animation is good.  The Iron Giant has a cool design.  And he's entirely CG whereas the rest of the movie is traditional hand drawn animation.

          There was only one negative thing I could think of.  I don't see how a train could do more damage than an army.  But I'm glad they haven't done a sequel.

          So overall, I really liked it.  I don't really have much to say other than it has a solid story, good animation, it's funny and moving, and has some good messages/themes.  I feel like this whole post is just me repeating myself...  But you should go see it if you haven't yet.

     But that's just my opinion...

Mama (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Two lost kids pick up a ghostly follower.  So, it had been a month since I've been to the movie theater and considering I had some free time in between classes, I decided to go.  And this was the only movie that ended before my evening class, so I saw it.

          I had mixed feelings about Mama; I felt it had a lot of potential, but didn't execute properly.  One of the things that bothered me was the story; it didn't flow well.  Basically, what it seemed like was that they had two interesting stories and mashed them together and they didn't mash very well.  Story 1 was about these girls that grew up alone in the woods, then re-entered society and had to adjust.  Story 2 was about a ghost that did ghostly things.  I thought each individual story was interesting and could have work on their own as individual movies; I didn't think they blended too well.  Story 1 had some touching moments and I think they could have really expounded on those and made a convincing drama.  And, while I don't know how original story 2 was, I was intrigued and thought it was a good ghost story.  So, basically the potential was the two stories and the bad execution was putting them together.

          I didn't really think it was scary, either.  It relies mostly on jump scares and music.  Yes, there were some scary parts (the best coming straight from the short on which it was based; that gave me chills), but it didn't work for me overall.  Part of the reason for this was that they showed waaaay too much of Mama.  They show her right in the beginning and continued to show her throughout the whole movie.  And some of the things she did looked really corny and stupid.  Less is defiantly more.

          I also had mixed feelings about the ending.  The ending, once again, shows way too much of the title character.  And it didn't really make sense.  So, I wasn't a fan of that.  But, I did like that fact that they "went there".  I don't want to spoil anything, but you'll probably know what I mean when you see it.  I give them kudos for that, because it is so easy not to.

          And one last thing, I don't know how it took them five years to find the car.  It wasn't that hidden.  They must have been pretty dumb not to see it sooner.

          So overall, it is an ok movie.  It had some good parts and merits; but it also had a lot of mistakes.  It's worth checking out when you have the time but it's nothing special.  But Jessica Chastain is pretty hot.

     But that's just my opinion...

New Star Wars Movies

          So, this is really old news (if you haven't heard it yet, where have you been?) but I've been too busy to talk about it.  Disney bought LucasFilm and are planning on making another trilogy (which take place after the original three), JJ Abrams is set to direct Star Wars: Episode VII, and they are making some spin-off films staring Han Solo, Boba Fett and possibly Yoda.

          I don't know how I feel about this.  I like Star Wars but this sounds like too much of a good thing.  But then again, I don't know when these films will be released and how close together, but with all the news coming out now, it just sounds like the market will be flooded with new Star War films.  I don't want to see Star Wars become like the Saw franchise where a new movie is released every year.  But, we will have to take that as it comes.

          But the thing that concerns me the most is the Han Solo spin-off movie. The problem with that is A) Harrison Ford is too old for a stand alone film and B) Harrison Ford is Han Solo.  They just can't cast another actor to replace Harrison Ford; that's just stupid.  Who ever they cast will always be in Harrison Ford's shadow.  I think they should just move on, leave the original characters alone, and make movies with new characters and new stories, but in the same universe.  I would be more interested in the rumored Star Wars movie based on Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (though, who knows if the rumor is true or not.)

          Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see the future of Star Wars.  There's not much we can do now except wait to see what happens next.  But, I don't think we will have to wait too long as there is already a trailer for the new Yoda movie out...

     But that's just my opinion...