Floating Flotsam, and Harrowing Heroics or my review of “Gravity” *****

Gravity is a cinematic achievement. There’s no doubt about that. From

the earth seen from space vistas to weightless debris, it’s a stunning film to watch. And I’ll just chime in here with each and every critic I read thus far in saying that seeing this on a small screen is unimaginable. I saw it in 3D and on an I-Max screen and it was incredible. Now as far as 3D goes it’s nowhere near the beauty that “Life of Pi” had going for it, but there’s only so much you can do in the emptiness of space, but still, the teardrop that seem to float out above about row three was very effective.

So with all this visual marvels is there story here? I say ‘yes’, if the story you’re looking for is simply survival of getting from point A to B to C. I read one review that said trying to give Sandra Bullock’s character some melodramatic back-story was its only flaw. Now I wouldn’t go that far, and I’d even say the drive and strength that her character musters is essential and all part an incredible performance (a “performance of a lifetime” as Peter Travers in Rolling Stone points out) of SandraBullock.

Now I’d heard this was something of a “chamber theater piece” meaning simplistic sets and all dialog between two people, in a survival setting, something like “Open Water” where the whole movie is just two people talking. Well ***spoiler alert*** GeorgeClooney’s role is small. But, then again, what he does with that small role is big. His veteran astronaut, Matt Kowalsky, playboy-type, playfully playing, easing the tension, really plays well against the rookie virgin voyage of Sandra’s Ryan Stone.  And this guardian role effectively tethers them together literally and figuratively before and after the initial disaster when a Russian satellite destructs and sends debris hurtling towards them.

Sandra Bullock      George Clooney

Sandra Bullock

I had a conversation talking about the back story and how there maybe could have been a flashback to before the mission and other elaborate storytelling devices, but I pointed out how from the very beginning with the opening shot: an amazing 13 minute floating camera that slowly pans, dips, and follows from one crew member to the next, puts you right in the action and feel of those astronauts. And then all the way to the end of the movie it’s almost told in real-time… only minutes of oxygen, only minutes of orbit, before burning in the atmosphere, and so on. You are almost literally sitting along side for the entire ride. To do anything else, like a flashback, would have broken this spell.

So some classic movies may have intricate plots, with twist and turns and in depth character studies etc.. but this too has an character arch of nauseous rookie to triumphant survivor and with every just missed grab of something to hold onto, there’s also scenes of ‘if she didn’t hold on to that hatch flying open she be gone’, that are just as entertaining, and with all it’s stunning visuals of the absolute vastness of space the director Alfonso Cuarón keeps this story grounded(pun intended) in a very human story.

In conclusion, I just want to add that without even realizing it, I really am quite the admirer of this director’s work . Only now am I realizing the diverse range of films I’ve seen are all done by the same guy.  I even probably agree with Peter Travers that the best of the Harry Potter movies The Prisoner of Azkaban was done by him. Plus I have seen his native language movie the coming of age Y Tu Mamá También and one of my all-time favorite films Children of Men. And now adding this stunning achievement makes for quite a résumé.

Which is scarier: A house full of girls or ghosts? Or my review of The Conjuring ****

The Conjuring is a…. well, is a great film. Much like my review on Elysium I was going to say “is a great horror film” but unlike my reserved genre labeling holding back my opinion of praising that film as a science fiction film, this hesitation at such labeling this as simply a great 'horror film' is actually in praise of the movie here. Horror films can so easily be dismissed onto the pile of shock gore fest splatter films and the like, that when a real well made scary film comes along, it really does stand out.

I read some other review I don’t remembers who’s but they pointed out the first thing I too noticed.  There is an opening prologue of sorts, with it’s stark title card, revealing a previous haunting that made this movie have all the earmarks of the aspirations of making a movie to the likes of The Exorcist. While it’s fails to deliver on the scale of that horror epic that fact it comes close to that cinematic high mark in terror, is something to commend indeed.

Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston playing parents of 5 girls

Compared to a movie like James Wan‘s previous excellent Insidious which dealt in parallel universes and plains of existence etc…  this one was shackled by “based on” or “inspired by” or whatever they framed this one with the “true events” setting.  And while that gray area or “dark” grey area, if you must, may extend to a lot of leeway in the levitation people and objects etc… there are some things you just want to say are true for sure, like this family had five girls… ranging from pre-school to high school age. In fact, the person I saw this with and I were humorously trying to keep track, when they had a shot of four of the girls heading to school and we thought we had it… until we were reminded of the pre-school girl! Any sane scriptwriter would have lessened the madness of the reality in this scenario!

But like when the paranormal specialists are brought in along with a local officer the actual mayhem of a simple breakfast among such a crowd was almost comical in presenting this as a real situation. But any comic relief or quite moments were certainly offset with real scares and jumps.

Lili Taylor playing Hide and Seek

One scene that puzzled me in the previews was why clapping hands would be scary, but when the girls are playing a version of hide and seek that include the three allowed clues of where you’re hiding to the seeker, the simple game takes on ominous proportions. And the jump factor still works even though you’ve seen it many times in the previews.

As film progresses you actually find time to separate out the girls, understand the foreboding of the paranormal specialist and her history, and the shear stamina of the parents played by Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston who obviously had their hands full even before they bought the to-good-to-be true countryside deal of a house from the bank.(When you buy something “as is” in an auction you’re probably hoping for some simple water damage not a house full of ghosts…) Anyway the way the interaction of all these people happen really draws you into an investment to liking these people even the paranormal investigators Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson illicit great empathy for them and all the children actresses , and so when one girl starts sleep walking, or the covers are pulled off another, or one sees a little boy in the mirror of a toy, the creepiness factor really builds.

Now eventually things build from the simple scare of a night gowned girl suddenly passing in the frame, to objects and people actually being thrown around the house, plus there’s TheSixth Sense like visions people have of past suicides and such, that build up to the real scare of the mother slowly becoming possessed by the evil presence that was supposedly the start of all the others.

Vera Farmiga               Patrick Wilson

And while it’s true most of the chills and thrills are all done without any blood and gore I suppose it’s the gruesome possession and exorcism that really give it it’s R rating.

The idea of “specialists” seems to have garnered weight ever since the creepy little lady in Poltergeist, for instance, even though the investigators  Patrick and Vera’s characters  are based on real “investigators” Ed and Lorraine Warren that wasn't important to films like the original The Amityville Horror movie even though the same two were involved in the case because at that time the only “specialist” most people associated with evil would be a priest.

Even though this movie supposedly took place around the same time as original The Exorcist that movie treated science as baffled and completely  inadequate with what cursed little Regan. Whereas this movie incorporates the sympathies of science to assure the couple that they “aren't going crazy”. With investigative tools of the time: automatic triggering camera, temperature changing sensors, and super sensitive audio equipment etc.. no infrared or ectoplasm thingamajigs of modern day, but you get the idea. But even here, of course, logic, science and all that tries to give the family foothold on sanity are subjected to pure evil that must be cast out with old fashion exorcism…

The possessed devil doll from the prologue tying in with the Warren’s daughter had some true suspension and horror to it, but was almost was like Wan had bitten off a bit more than he could chew…  unlike the mom who bit off a piece of the police officer’s cheek causing them to throw sheet over her head..ha!comic relief… So even though the daughter subplot was a stretch, and the ending is a bit extreme in it’s chaotic deliverance from evil for the family as children are trapped beneath floor boards or in the car or I forget where all, the unrivaled suspense that got us there to the turmoil and whirlwind of an ending is truly terrifying and extremely well done.

To have and (make sure) to have not… or my review of Elysium ****

Elysium is a…well, is a great movie. I hesitated there only because I was going to say  “is a great science fiction movie" and while this is most definitely a science fiction movie,  I think Neill Blomkamp had too many balls in the air for me to champion this movie as classic science fiction. From the heavy emphasis on action mixed in with all the commentary on poverty, pollution, and health care etc… he had chainsaws, bowling balls and bowling pins in the air for this juggling act… But don’t get me wrong this is about as good as it gets with film making and story telling. Personally I thought the heavy emphasis on the action made it loose some of the overall effectiveness on all the other social commentary it had going for it. To me, by definition, great social commentary is something that all great science fiction has. And while I think Neil had great aspirations for doing just that he also had an eye on the box-office potential of super-hero level box-office potential.

What's interesting is I saw this with a conservative friend who also likes science fiction but in hindsight it’s something I should have asked them about because liking science fiction HAS to be at odds with much of their regular day to day thinking .

The Elysium space station

Matt Damon

Most of the best science fiction rally against corporations out of control, or rally the against the repression of freedom of thought and expression, fighting  the corruption of power and money, human rights over misguided self righteous morals etc… all those things his political party usually stands for…. And while they were typically busy with counting the number of “F-bombs”  rather than counting the number of crimes against humanity, all the action I think helped mask the extremes of the ‘haves’ against the ‘have nots’ and it's "class warfare" message. This way it did not seem to offend their senses the way the director's previous attempt at the allegories of apartheid and all ‘the good things it had to offer’, that were so well played out in his District 9. And speaking of that movie... considering the relatively tiny budget he worked with on that one, it was very interesting to see him balance the "brain and brawn" with the slick and fantastic look of this film with it's much bigger budget.

Matt Damon  Alice Braga

But aside of all the "action versus message" in this film what I really liked was some of the turns this film took. Every time this movie started to head in a predictable direction Neil would throw in a curve ball, literally crashing things to the ground like when they were delivering the prisoners to the orbiting space station Elysium. Now there may have been a few stretches of believably in the plot where Matt Damon's character Max just happens to get a lethal dose of radiation that sends him on his suicidal mission, at the exact same time Jodie Foster's character Delacourt, the security leader of the one-precenters on Elysium is planning a coup, but these complaints are minor when dealing the humanity Matt Damon’s character builds up as Max trying to save all those on Earth in particular his childhood friend Frey(Alice Braga) and her sick daughter that needing to get to the instant healing only available on Elysium.

Jodie Foster

Now, Richard Roeper called Jodie Foster’s acting something like the worst performance in the history of film, or something like that, while Peter Travers said she was “killing it, as a Dick Cheney in heels.” I was probably somewhere in the middle. And while I would be hard pressed to particularly defend the locked jawed grit she was grinding out, the Cheney comment is laughably accurate.  In particular, I liked the fact she was not ‘chewing the scenery’ as is often the case with great actors in villainous roles.

Sharlto Copley

So the idea of how rich people really don’t care if poor people have access to medical care is scarily reflective of today’s world… just look… yet another vote by old rich white dudes against health care for the poor is in today’s headlines… and taking the idea of unregulated corporations polluting the world to climate changing levels wrapped up around several cool gun battles, and fight scenes between a exoskeleton enhanced Matt Damon and psycho villain Kruger(Sharlto Copley)  can seem a bit flippant, or incongruous, still...I walked away from this film extremely entertained and yes even intellectually challenged, so having said everything I just said, it really is a great ‘science fiction movie’… “f-bomb” ? “Was there?  ‘spose so… and how many tattoos did they have?”

Step back and squint… or my review of “World War Z” ***

As much as I liked the roller-coaster ride of World War Z, I can also find just as much NOT to like about it. Adding to the dislike column was after first seeing it only later finding out what the novel it was based on was like. There was no super hero character(with almost super hero powers) that Brad Pitt plays with Gerry Lane, the novel delves deep into cultural, political, and religious scopes that cover a true “World War”. This movie has none of that. World War Z is a carefully manufactured “blockbuster” taking absolutely no chances what-so-ever. No chances in anything but star power, no chances on anything religious or culturally offensive, no chances on anything too gross or disgusting… despite the genre’s almost demand for it… Again, I enjoyed the movie, but I have never before in my life, felt so carefully manipulated at a movie.

The PG-13 rating is a tip off right there. Any episode of “TheWalking Dead” has ten times more frightening scare and gore to it than anything in this movie. It so heavily panders to the largest crowd that it possibly can, that I hesitate to even put it in the zombie movie genre.

Brad Pitt/Gerry Lane tries to get his family out of the city

But despite it’s prefabricated construction it still delivers quite a punch in tension and action. To further my analogy… 90% of people probably don’t care or even know they’re in an assembled house for instance, as I’m sure is the case with most movie goers. And there are some beautiful manufactured houses I’m sure… For instance, the happy family with all their MANY loving glances to each, other during your typical breakfast mayhem scene would be like a professional contractor looking at a front porch that was erected in 30 minutes…. it’s a sure sign this family is headed for trouble! But let’s go ahead and walk on in!

The walls of Jerusalem are breached

The "subtlety" only goes down-hill from there... but still, the scenes of the original outbreak of the family stuck in a traffic-jam of unknown lethal origins is played out well. Brad Pitt’s super hero Gerry Lane, first seeing people being attacked and ‘turning’ is all done with effective rising tensions leading to a truly frightening supermarket scramble and such.  So with them first trapped in an apartment building the narrow scope of the outbreak is more like all previous zombie movies going back to the first Night of the Living Dead’s defense of a simple farmhouse. But as they’re quickly lifted off the roof because Gerry Lane and his old job has contacts literally and figuratively in high places, this movie, at least taking some cues from the book, wants to take this up to a global scale, leaving the farmhouse far behind. It does that immensely, globe trotting Gerry all over the world in an attempt to find patient zero of the plague. The fact he makes it to place after place, barely ahead of the marauding masses of the infected, seen so ever briefly in the movie’s trailers and ***spoiler-alert*** they’re not seen much more in the movie either! Seeing exactly how those ant-like colony columns build would have been horrifically fascination, but the movie scenes are about as brief and hectic as the trailers. Anyway, the fact he barely makes it out time and time again, is reminiscent of John Cusack in 2012 escaping falling sky scrapers and runways dropping out beneath his plane etc… And he even survives a horrific airline crash… well not with-out a “scratch” I will say, but his miraculous speedy recovery from a pretty serious injury, or how our hero Gerry figures out what no one else can about how to combat the zombies etc… it all only goes to show you, that back to my earlier analogy you really should not inspect that “house” too closely…

Every time I try to go into detail about this movie I start finding fault with it which I think is just the nature of something so obviously pandering. So I’ll try and finish the review on a more positive note because, as I said before, over-all, I did enjoy this movie… so I do want to give it a positive star rating reluctant as they maybe…

Riding in coach really gets bad

As I mentioned with the first outbreak and the supermarket raid, or there’s a great scenes of them trying to quietly get to a plane in pouring rain on bicycles, or the breaching the walls of Jericho, I mean walls of Jerusalem... somebody's walls! (And again the wide shots are fascinating of the piling hordes but still not as effective as arms reaching through boarded up windows... just for a "classic" genre example.)  Anyway, and then there's' the really well-done scene of the first-class stand-off against the infected in coach scene, or the genuine tension of them trying to get through the infected wing of the World Health Organization building… these are all done with highly effective thrills and truly scary tensions.

So with what will probably be a failed attempt at not being insulting I will say that ANY less discerning audience will like this movie, which is obviously why it is doing so well at the box office. Playing to the lowest common denominator has it’s advantages in translating to those box-office dollars. So as much as I may feel like I should give it only two stars or less I am willingly and effectively being manipulated into giving it three stars. If you go just for the fun of it you will have fun. If you start to knock on the walls to find if there are enough cross beams? Not so much.

You’re getting sleepy…. NOT! Or my review of Trance ****

After my review of several of the summer blockbusters with their falling skyscrapers, mega explosions, burning barges, and exploding spaceships, and all that burning smoking destruction, Trance was almost literally a breath of fresh air.(Okay there was some tear gas and a burning car at the end of this movie but you get the point….) And speaking of SciFi... although there is one element that borders on science fiction I won’t reveal the twist here as it really doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the film in the slightest.

I suppose you could say the movie is slightly formulaic but it’s formulaic as a heist movie, as a gangster film, as a psychological thriller, as a film noir mystery romance. It’s the blend of all these in a masterful  interweaving of genres that makes Danny Boyle such a master film maker.

From his beginnings with his morbid masterpiece of Hitckcockian tale of normal people in situations that spiral out of control in Shallow Grave, to the hyper reality of Trainspotting and it’s excellent music soundtrack that also blended genres., Boyle has shown a deft hand at mixing things up, telling extremely engaging stories. He attempts genres and makes them his own like no one has since Kubrick. And while unlike Kubrick greatest movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, Boyle’s science fiction movie Sunshine is the only genre, that in my opinion, was his only less than success. Things like his Zombie movie 28 Days Later... or his Bollywood movie Slumdog Millionaire are some of my all time favorite movies.

James McAvoy

And while Trance is a scaled back movie in every sense, British….  It’s one of those that even though they are speaking English, subtitles would have helped immensely.  But having said that I must say that  “unknown” cast is exquisite, with a bit of IMdb.com research I was able to find things like the lead character James McAvoy was the main guy against Forest Whitaker’s Idi Amin in the excellent The Last King of Scotland, or the main gangster type guy Vincent Cassel has been the baddie in many films including the ‘baddie’ director explaining the seduction of and his own seducing of Swan Lake in The Black Swan, and Rosario Dawson I remember from Quentin Tarantino’s Grindhouse “Death Proof” segment, or one of the femme fatales in Sin City.  So this trilogy of excellent bit actors in the hands of a master pull off the most engaging, mind twisting, bizarre love triangles in film history.  As I mentioned before the juggling of genres start off with the excellence tension of a heist movie, and as it enters the psychological thriller, what happens after the heist is revisited in jumbled flashbacks as McAvoy’s character receives a head injury and can’t remember what happened. He visits a therapist specializing in hypnotherapy to help in remembering and quickly she’s entangled in the what happened to the stolen painting, and of course there’s the film noir elements of who’s playing who.

Vincent Cassel

an extremely British movie with relatively unknown cast, all his skills are evident. And when I say British I mean 

Rosario Dawson

I even liked how the film as it’s title suggests hypnotically takes you into the art world, particularly the world of stolen paintings. I had fun researching the stolen paintings it mentions like Rembrandt’s “The Storm on the Sea of Galilee”. But the labyrinth of revealing what was locked inside the main character’s mind is all done in a hypnotic style, with mind-bending twist of dreams with-in dreams etc.. . but also in the romantic entanglement that has you wondering who has the upper hand as guards are let down and weaknesses exposed and in one of the movie's not so obvious twists,  is the fact you actually begin to like the bad guy?  In particular, I had to track down the excellent song “Sandman”  by Kirsty McGee as it’s dreamy lilting melody perfectly underscores that feeling not quite being in control in a dream yet not caring and enjoying that floating feeling.

As I mentioned before there is some suspension of disbelief, and some major plots holes that may cause the story to fall apart if examined too closely and a more discerning skeptic might find major fault under that close of an examination, and it’s does knock off a star value for me for sure. But I found the trip through this mind maze and romantic entanglement to be most enjoyable.

Rossario/McAvoy

As I raise my fist and scream, “Abraaaaaaaaams!” Or my review of Star Trek: Into Darkness ***1/2

I remember oh so long ago in another life, Letterman actually had a The Shinning which has JUST been released( I wonder if he's ever revised his opinion in hindsight?) Anyway he said he thought Kubrick handled it like a grenade that he had to throw himself on to protect everyone else. SO!!! This long round about intro is to say sometimes I feel ol' J.J. is doing the same with the new Star Trek franchise.  Even though I enjoyed the film immensely, sometimes I actually think he's saying to the original Star Trek  fans, "This in mine now! AhHaHahaHA!!"

morning show, that I would actually drag my teenage-self out of bed for, (Obviously for the reason's I just pointed out... it failed and a Late Night version later succeeded) ANYWAY! I remember one of his guests in those early days, was Stephen King, and Dave asked him what he thought of Kubrick's 

Okay I’m going to say right here: ****spoiler alert!****,but I assume the fact it’s been out awhile won’t prevent you from reading this because talking about the specifics of what Abrams does to the Star Trek timeline is mainly what kept me from enjoying this film to it’s full extent. Now I did go back a see this movie a second time in 3D and I must admit I was a bit more forgiving without my original Star Trek expectations and thus disappointments. The idea of having a story line that neatly hooks up to where the story began in the original series was completely thrown out the window in Abrams first Star Trek movie. By having time-travel change the timeline with things like... oh I don’t know... say blowing up the entire planet Vulcan?!? The idea that you were going to have Captain Pike and Captain Kirk changing of hands that happened in the pilot and first episodes was not going to happen in these movies. I mean if stepping on a butterfly in the past can cause the entire future change, imagine what wiping out a planet can do.

In fact, in my second viewing is were I caught the fact that it was the destruction of Vulcan that caused them to find  Khan and his crew years before their “five year mission” was to have begun. And the spoiler? Yes Benedict Cumberbatch is suppose to be Khan of Ricardo Montalban fame for the series and Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. So they kill off Captain Pike,which I suppose is better than his original fate of ending up a burnt paraplegic in chair with a blinking light to communicate, but they don’t want to find a young Latino actor just to keep the surprise reveal? A reveal really makes no sense? They painstakingly have a great cast of younger versions of the whole crew who are back from the first movie with particularly fun turns by Simon Pegg as Scotty and Anton Yelchin as Chekov, but what about Vulcan being destroyed turned the Latino Khan into a British accented villain?

However brilliantly portrayed?

From "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"

And then there's the “twist” where Kirk and Spock change places behind the glass of the radiated section, and Spock screams “Khaaaaan!”instead of the iconic yet much maligned William Shatner/Kirk scream from Star Trek II. Again, in the second viewing, I started thinking of how it’s almost a time-travel/alternate universe convention that sometimes there’s just subtle difference that can change things yet they’re almost the same. A goatee or an eye patch will be on the alternate person, or this person in now in charge and the other person is his subordinate instead etc.. but that's me being extremely forgiving, when deep down it's more like I first said Abrams just want to say, “This is mine now, the TV series and Movie stories are mine to toy with too!” The fact he now has the reigns of Star Wars has me VERY concerned about how much one man can have over my Science Fiction universe!

Anyway! ALL THAT ASIDE! The action, the effects, the story of this movie makes it very enjoyable to watch. And I might add the 3D viewing with the red leaves, spear throwing in your face opening to the space debris space suit flight did make it a slightly more enjoyable experience than seeing just the 2D version.So Overall, as a stand alone film, or at least a stand alone series is very enjoyable. And speaking of this particular series I forget,but I assume Zachary Quinto/Spock and Zoe Saldana/Uhura were suppose to be an item in the first movie? It does bring an interesting dynamic of balancing emotions and lack of emotions that Zarachy really does have fun with. And this ‘balance’ really effectively extends with Chris Pine as Kirk. I guess the Vulcan destruction also wiped out the seven year cycles Vulcans were suppose to have in romantic interests? Well there I go again trying to apply the rules of the television series to the new movies.

So again, to wrap up…. aside from my reservations, this movie does deliver on great space scenes, good action, excellent villains, including some almost cameo Klingons, and a cast having some real fun with re-imagining characters that have become mainstays in the Science Fiction culture. Anytime you have a movie where actors like Karl Urban as ‘Bones’ McCoy have fun with “Dammit Jim…” and other Star Trek classics, you have a winner.

I am Iron Man!… or maybe not? Or my review of Iron Man 3 ***1/2

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone says,that he’s  “…getting Robert Downey'ed-out” and subsequently gave Iron Man 3 a less than favorable review. Well I guess I haven’t gotten there yet and when Robert Downey Jr.’s alter-ego Tony Stark says to the bi-spectacled little tote head, “I loved you in ‘Christmas Story’..” I had a real laugh. So for me, his wise-cracking loose cannon hubris can still carry the movie. Tons of well done action and mega-destruction do help though, and shows just why Michael Bay movies are such turds.

Ben Kingsley

Robert Downey Jr.

One thing I would be curious to know is how much screen time out of the suit Mr. Downey had in previous incarnations. Because it seemed to me that this movie he wanted to be out of the suit as much as possible even ending with him no longer even need the suit’s power coil to keep him alive. This apparent strive to be a Tony Stark movie and not and Iron Man movie did seem to rub me a bit the wrong way. The self assembling suit that he may or may not even need to be in, was certainly used to its full extreme as he could get in and out of the suit with lightening ease, thusly more screen time for good ol’ Robert.

Guy Pearce

But that’s really the extent of my complaints. I wasn't a big comic book fan growing up, I was too busy at the movie matinees or reading actual books if that not too snobbish to say), anyway…Iron Man was one of the few I actually followed on a very limited basis so much so I couldn't follow some people’s outrage that Mandrake was just a front in the movie. I guess the fact he was more of a stooge in the movie had some villain fans upset, which I guess I could understand but it made for one of the more enjoyable surprises for me. I thought at first there was going to be another Alan Rickman pretends-to-be-a-sniveling-coward- to-get the-upper-hand Die Hard moment, but instead Ben Kingsley/Mandrake is the stooge he appears to be, and Robert Downey’s Tony is enjoyably perplexed, giving the more scenery for Guy Pearce to chew as the formerly shunned nerd, turned super villain.

Gwyneth Paltrow

Jon Favreau

One other thing I really like was the expansion of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts character. And while she eventually does become the damsel in distress required in comic book movies, her seemingly effortless ease of building a three dimensional character that is able to handle the egomania of the Stark character creating a real chemistry that is a joy to watch and generates a genuine emotional investment that is a cheering point when Iron Man comes to the rescue.

So from the mystery movie elements of solving the unexplained explosions including putting into a coma the franchise’s former director Jon Favreau, who I think wisely gave up the reigns to ShaneBlack and was able to concentrate on the over protective friend  Happy Hogan, to the action packed duel between the genetically altered villain Aldrich Killian and his army and Iron Man and his army of suits and DonCheadle’s alternate Iron Man atop the gigantic barge, the choreography was exciting and easy to follow, and made the whole movie a nice roller-coaster ride.

Fee-Fi-Fo Fun! Or my review of “Jack The Giant Slayer” ***1/2

Warner Bros. Pictures release. © 2013 Warner Bros. 

Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson

Ewan McGregor

My two favorite reviewers Roger Ebert and Peter Travers(Rolling Stone magazine) really split on Jack The Giant Slayer. After seeing it, I have to say I’m leaning a bit towards Ebert’s enjoyment on this one. And while biting cynical merciless attacks are what make me enjoy Peter Travers on a usual basis, I think the barbs were uncalled for here. After reading his review, all the negative rants he had to spew were fairly baseless, even praising the banter between Jack(Nicholas Hoult) and Elmont(Ewan McGregor) but he does so comparing that to the lack of spark between Jack and the Princess(Eleanor Tomlinson) Well, if you’re not expecting anything above a fairy-tale romance and want some simple entertainment, I think this one delivers. In fact, for me, the fanciful scenic lands in the clouds combined with all the choreography of defending a castle, all get high marks in my book. I love moats, castle keeps, inner wards, allures… etc… and the very competent director Bryan Singer has fun with all of this I think. 

Even Stanley Tucci as the ‘human’ villain is fun and as Ebert says, he hams it up “..a bit just shy of mustache twirling”. Then like the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies.. once again Bill Nighy is invaluable for motion capture acting beneath all that CGI. (he gives Andy Serkis a run for his money in faux creatures performances)  

Stanley Tucci

The two critics split on the CGI of the giants too. Peter thought they looked like tacky leftovers from Clash of the Titans, where as Ebert called them “pretty awesome”. As a CGI artist I’m somewhere in the middle. It’s funny in the beginning as the back story of the giants are told as stories to the children they are illustrated/animated in the quick style of computer games, and then of course when they meet the giants for “real” all the layer of skin pores, hair, dirt etc.. all are added to make them exist in the “real” environment, and I think it’s pulled off pretty well as the multi-million budget attests to. So it is sad that this movie isn't doing as well as it should. It’s fun and action packed  and compared to some like, I’m sorry, but the laborious movie The Hobbit this one is a roller-coaster ride! I didn't see it in 3D and while there were a few scenes that I’m sure might have had a “look out… duck!” feel to them, I don't think I missed out... and if anything... enjoyed it more... just watching the regular 2D fun.

In conclusion I must say it was interesting to research the difference between “Jack the Giant Killer” and “Jack and the Beanstalk” and variations like “The Brave Little Tailor”…  For instance Mickey Mouse assumed the role of both the later ones.. And I remember being entertained as a kid, battling giants and the land in clouds etc.. and was even reminded of farcical treatments like Abbott and Costello’s Jack and the Beanstalk. So the updates in technology and sensibilities were a welcome one for me. Although one final thought… central to almost all the old stories was the giant’s “wife”. And as Ebert points out in this new one,       “… where are the lady giants and the teenage giants and the baby giants?”