The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (2023)

I'll continue the series of brief entries, with one that's again a bit different from the rest = a short: "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar". I don't know if I had another subject within this category in the history of my blog, but moving over the motivation + the matching with my lack of time, here I really considered that this movies deserves noticing. After "Fantastic Mr. Fox", from 2009, this is the 2nd adaptation by Wes Anderson of Roald Dahl's work, a short story, and what the movie does is precisely to narrate that story. The central part over which it develops is the history of a hindu magician with capabilities of seeing without his eyes, who apparently drains some influences from a real character. The other half of the story I'll leave for watching, it's not that long anyway. The movie is recognisable as a work by Wes Anderson = it has the typical display of colors and the ensemble cast, with transitions from one character to another as protagonist, even if at the scale of a short. But it's especially filled with the typical optimistic tone doubled by fine humor nuances, sometimes barely noticeable. Somehow, in brief, it's like an episode of "The Outer Limits" or "Black Mirror", but in a much more positive light ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

It's probably a bit late for this review, but I'm not used anymore to jump up to watch a box-office title in its first day of release. Actually, for a few years already, I'm more like avoiding these. "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" was an exception, but one still far from exceptional. The perfect artificial rejuvenation of Harisson Ford in the beginning of the movie is pretty much the single memorable thing about it. Besides that, you can still appreciate that it's a bit above the common superficiality found in most summer movies. But not with much.

The above appreciation stems from the story the movie offers. Not spectacular, but it's pretty consistent. The object of the quest this time, is a mechanism, Antikythera, fictitiously conceived in the movie by Archimedes and capable to predict temporal fissures. The reality about the artifact is obviously a different one, but let's move over it (you can Google it). The nice part in the movie, especially if you didn't have much of a vacation, is that it gets you through a classic quest moving between various touristic locations, until the tangled puzzle is completed. After which, finally (spoiler) we also have a brief travel back in time to the ancient Greece.

Initially the movie seems catchy, throwing at you familiar facts and faces from the Indiana Jones universe, the end of WW2 introducing the villain - a nazi physicist, the return of Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) - migrated from the first movie's Egypt to New York, the tour of an exotic location - Morroco in this case, the well-known melodic line by John Williams, and others. But slowly, this starts to drag, and the action becomes somehow dull. What saves it, more or less, is the time travel element in the end, but the fact you know from the start where the quest goes, doesn't make it a surprise anymore. Unlike, for instance, "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where you have no clue up to the end what exactly happens when the ark will open. Here, the final feeling, after more than two hours of movie, is somehow similar to the main character who being at the age of retirement complains that he doesn't fit anymore in such a story - the movie's sort of meeting the base expectations through its background elements, but seems a bit too "tired" to deliver enough impact. Even so, compared with the precedent exaggeration atempted by Spielberg in 2008 for reviving the character, what we got here seemed to me more in tone with the Indiana Jones I remember from when I was a kid.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

I guess that my subconscious related the words in the title - "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" - with some recent episodes I got through in the local medical system, without any connection with the movie, but making me to choose this as a subject. Because I actually don't have much to write about it...

The first "Doctor Strange" was slightly different than the rest of the Marvel universe, reason for I decided to give a chance to the sequel too. Even though the reviews are not stellar. And indeed it's not on par with the initial movie, but I think it's still a bit above the level where the Marvel fan armies set the production compared to others. The subject is a bit messy, keeping the spirit of the title, in a minimalistic description revolving around a good wizard battling an evil witch through various universes within the multiverse. I'm really not in the mood to provide more details for what is nothing more than a children's fairy tale.

The main criticism the movie received, from what I heard, targeted the direction of Sam Raimi. About that, even the story is not the best, I can say I felt somehow pleased that finally somebody had the guts to leave some of his own touch to distract a bit the attention from a Marvel multiverse filled with cliche. It's probably not visible to most of today's audience, but for who intersected a bit with Sam Raimi's older movies, not that much the initial Spider-Man trilogy but others like "Evil Dead" or the '90s series of Hercule and Xene, you can feel here a bit of the slightly dark humour from back then, as well as a characteristic "chaos" that provides a nostalgic charm. Three minutes of Bruce Campbell as a pizza salesman is just an example. For these crumbles I'm gonna give it a...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Love and Monsters (2020)

I won't try getting too philosophical and extracting some hidden message from "Love and Monsters" to fit the late context, because I probably wouldn't agree with what message might send. I just simply took the movie as it is - a light SciFi with a consistent comedy part.

We have a dystopian context, where after humanity successfully avoided a cataclismic disaster by bombing an asteroid on its way to Earth, fount itself in a different problem = the radioactive waste landing on the planet created mutations causing various species to dangerously grow overnight. Lots of times I thought that we're lucky that pidgeons aren't 10-15 times bigger, otherwise we would be extinct. That's pretty much the conclusion the movie reaches, although I didn't see any pidgeon there, but we have others - the "monsters" in the title.

In this situation, pretty much everybody retired in various shelters, periodically going out for food. Some kind of "Zombieland", but with mutated creatures instead of zombies. In a group of survivors we find Joel, who after many years finds his former girlfriend, in some other shelter on the seaside at something like seven days of walking - and so we get the "love" in the title. That leads to the main part in the movie - the travel to meet her again. Only that Joel has a small big problem, zero experience in fighting what awaits him outside, or better said a "freeze panic" effect when encountering anything with more legs, tentacles, or other types of members, larger than himself.

Obviously the subject described above has lots of potential. The movie delivers withn an "ok" margin. I guess it could've been better, or better said I felt something missing. Maybe it was just the comic side and the drama exits from that don't have enough force to have the same effect as for example "Guardians of the Galaxy". Maybe there are some action threads that seemed unfinished. Or maybe I did expect too much. Anyway, bottom line, the movie was fun.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

WolfWalkers (2020)

Unfortunately, struggling somewhere between Ketorol and Nurofen for some dental issues that seem to contest my incapacitation record dating from my ankle fracture two and a half years ago, I'm not in the best mood for writing. Therefore, I'll move quickly over "WolfWalkers", although it probably deserves more.

The animation we're talking about is made by the same Irish team as "The Secret of Kells" and "Song of the Sea", reason why I didn't expect much from it. Not that the above aren't good (I guess), but... it's just a matter of taste - in brief, each of the previous movies seemed to me as a sort of Miyazaki made in Europe = lots of senses way too hidden that get lost in an Irish fantasy instead of a Japanese one, and which had the effect of a sleeping pill on me when I've seen it. We have here too an idea that probably has its origin in the local folklore - a variant of the werewolf myth, with the difference from the above that "WolfWalkers" is much more coherent in its narrative, and didn't get me bored. Everything starts with a hunter's daughter, who gets bit by another girl of about the same age, but having a wolf shape. Worse, a wolf leading a pack in the nearby forrest, considered a great danger for the town where our action is settled. The result, the hunter's daughter gets, as in any "werewolf story", the same transformation capabilities, stuff that completely incompatible with her father's job taked by the ruthless lord protector to erradicate the menace in the woods.

The way this whole story complicates can be seen in the movie. What I can say is that despite its lack of twists, what we see here is sufficiently complex to worth the time, and somehow the mix between myth, folklore and the relatively alert action, succeeds this time = it's neither too pretentios in its meanings to put the age target too high, neither too childish to make it too low.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Never Cry Wolf (1983)

In the landscape of Disney productions, "Never Cry Wolf" looks like a sort of accident. It's true that we're talking about a 1983 Disney production, not one of today. But even so, if you wouldn't have the reference in the credits or on the poster, you probably would not guess that such a non-commercial movie received its budget from the above source.

The film is based on an autobiographical book of a biologist sent to conduct a study in the isolated North of Canada, about the reduction of the caribou population, the main cause suspected at the time (before 1950) being the wolves in the area. There's to be mentioned that parts of the book remain debatable, from the accuracy of facts like wolves could mainly feed for a long time with small rodents up to accusations that claims of being a solitary expedition are completely fake. Even so, the publication apparently caused enough impact to clarify that the main issue was the excessive hunting, and not the wolves, which have their own role in maintaining the ecosystem. But, let's move back to the movie...

The director is Carroll Ballard, who only counts six feature films in his career, the majority revolving around a subject close to nature, and you can spot the clear tendency here towards a documentary. The cinematography is gorgeous, especially given that pretty much all is real stuff - we don't have artificial augmentations = the effects of today. What might come as a surprise is the density of surreal scenes, from repairing a plane during flight up to using a typewriter in the middle of a snow desert. But that's probably also the main factor that makes the movie likeable & non-boring. The second part tends to drag a little, and you're left mostly with the documentary side to keep you watching. Anyway, if you want a break from mainstream stuff, this is a pretty good option.

Rating: 4 out of 5

 

The Lost City of Z (2016)

"The Lost City of Z" starts with a title, poster and trailer that are unfortunately more promising than what the movie delivers in the end. What we have here is a sort of a biopic, where the central figure is Percy Fawcett, officer of the British army and one of the explorers of the Amazonian jungle in the beginning of the XXth century, who got credit as one of the first supporters for the idea of an ancient civilization in the area. The movie follows his foot steps into his main expeditions, his more or less fortunate associations with team members, and catches a glimpse also of his family troubles caused by his prolonged absences. There's nothing that moves out of the "average" area in the movie - neither the script, nor the technical part, the acting is not bad, but it's not brilliant either. From some perspective is probably more fair to not have an excessively "romanticized" exposure, in favor of one that's more close to the simple truth, which starts looking more like a documentary from some point onward. But even this feeling - spoiler alert - is messed up by the end, where the truth is left in limbo in regard to the last expedition where colonel Fawcett got forever lost. Moreover, there some speculation in the movie completely lacking any credibility, of him either passing gently to the other side or even more, "relocating" and continuing his life in the middle of the Indian tribes. This comes in the context of pretty much all other sources agreeing on a sad end of the guy. Especially given that neither him, nor his son who was along, never gave any sign of life for their family (contrary to a symbolic "message" as suggested in the film). But well, probably such an ending would've looked too bad. I don't have any other explanation. Anyway, the rest is fine for improving your general knowledge. Although, a more productive activity towards this purpose might be just watching some documentary on National Geographic.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)

"Hunt for the Wilderpeople" is an NZ production. Not a random choice. The subject in brief: an orphan child (and with a background of a bunch of minor felonies) is given to a new foster family - auntie Bella & uncle Hec, somewhere in the middle of nowhere in New Zealand. So nowhere that the attempt to run away from home is not feasible anymore. And like that, slowly, the boy starts attaching to his new family, especially to his adoptive aunt. The uncle, not the most friendly guy, remains a bit more reluctant to accepting the new family member, but overall things go well. Up to some day when auntie Bella drops dead. Consequently the child care services decide that the boy has to be moved to another family. Which is not really on his liking, resulting in a new attempt of running away "into the wild" (not before trying to fake his own suicide and burning the barn in the process). The boy is followed by uncle Hec, who, however, manages to injure his own foot before bringing the kid home => long camping in the woods. And like that we're getting to a situation where the two are added to a list of "wanted fugitives", apparently sufficient to convince them both that it's probably better to stick to the forest for a while.

If you ever felt "a need to escape" from your everyday life/work/whatever, but not as some vacation, the acute state when you feel you cannot go forward, then that's probably not the good movie for you. Because it might depress you further. On the other hand, it is the movie for you. Because it will show you that it can be done, at least temporarily. And during that time you might find a way for a better return. That's the optimistic view - the realistic view is that "might find a way" is not "will find a way" and besides turning the back to everybody, you might need also to break a leg sometimes... Too much philosophy. It's a fun movie. And as I said it's not a random choice = you can feel the chill, laid back attitude that's present in NZ, which makes the "escape" idea even more real and the movie more enjoyable ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)

I don't remember much about "Jumanji" (1995). Just that I liked it back then. I also don't remember much about "Zathura" (2005). Just that I liked it more than "Jumanji". I'm pretty sure I won't remember much neither about the new "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" (2017). Unless that maybe it's weaker than the first, and clearly below "Zathura".

The new version doesn't seem to be a sequel for the old one, but more towards a remake. The "cursed" board game is replaced by an old arcade that absorbs the players into a jungle where they have to save Jumanji (= the jungle). It's obvious that in such a movie you need to accept a certain level of "SciFi", but somehow the entire bit of grabbing/passing the players into the game seems a bit too childish... I don't know, the initial version, as also the closet in Narnia, or to be more close to the current setting the arcade in "TRON" seemed much more... believable. Anyway... On the good side, leaving the intro apart, the idea of a cursed arcade in which you're trapped has quite a potential to explore. Each player has an avatar in the game that is pretty far from the real form. We have a number of lives and the respawn concept. We have strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, even though the movie covers quite a bit of all these, it loses on the script. The jokes sometimes work, sometimes they don't. The dialogue has a clear age target in the range of 10-16. The story does not offer much surprise - the always present action is running from the bad guys towards the final objective to get the job done.

It's curious how the new "Jumanji" still managed to please enough the critics and didn't land exactly close to the trash bin. I assume it's more about politically correctness than how good is the movie. For instance "Journey to the Center of The Earth" in the same niche is somewhere at 61 on RT in comparison 77 here, and I think it's a bit better than this one. But well... as a family/kids movie I guess it works.

I would've liked to end 2017 with something better, but unfortunately I doubt I'll have time to watch any other movie and also write an entry until the 0:00 between years... so that's it for now. I have to notice that it's the first year, after 10 of blogging, when I didn't have a movie with the maximum rating among my entries. Maybe I got too picky... Maybe I got old and my chemistry with the new releases is fading... Maybe I don't have enough time to watch enough or to choose what to watch... Anyway, Happy New Year! & hopefully next year will be better ;)

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

In brief, the newest "Kong" is a nostalgic. But, surprisingly, that's not about an older "Kong"...

We have an island, we have the expedition, we have the blonde, we have the gorilla, but still the story is a new one (or I don't know all the old ones). The US government decides near the end of the Vietnam war to fund investigating a remote island in the South Pacific, an isolated ecosystem, which I guy who nobody believes claims it's populated with something... big, for which we need a military escort. And like that, we're gathering the dream team, and we fly with a choppers squadron, with a direct reference to "Apocalypse Now", towards the great unknown. Where Kong, troubled by the noisy guests, reduces them by half, leaving the other half to find a way out... But there is more than Kong on the island.

There are lots of references in this movie. It made me think on "Kelly's Heroes" looking at the army bunch, or on "Moby Dick" looking at the obsession of the one who leads it, or on "Indiana Jones" (I don't know why...), or on others. And it's nice. It's not a copy of any of these. And as I was saying it's not even a copy of another Kong: the purpose is not to capture the monkey. It's a survival movie who made me think mostly on "Jurassic Park". And if you've seen "Jurassic Park" in cinema when you were little, you know the feeling ;)... One more thing: the camera work is gorgeus. Too bad that the ending is I don't know... a bit too dry...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Inferno (2016)

... by Dan Brown, or "Torture" (of the viewer) by Ron Howard, is the last piece of the trilogy that started quite ok with "DaVinci Code" and continued less ok by "Angels and Demons". Tom Hanks is back as Robert Langdon, probably the person in academia who had the most thrilling life since Indiana Jones ...

The guy wakes up somewhere in Florence in a hospital which is so obvious is not a hospital that giving a spoiler warning is totally useless. Partial amnesia and a medic from UK who we don't know how she got in a ER in Florence, but we know that she was a little prodigy. Obviously Mr. Langdon doesn't smell any issue in all this context, somehow similar with him forgetting the name of that dark drink that wakes you up in the morning (a subtle excuse for giving credibility to an intrigue that's hard to cope with). However, Mr. Langdon is able to build up the path towards a virus hidden by a demented billionaire who wants to erase half of the world population for providing Earth with a brighter future (it's me, or this subject gets scarily overused lately ...). Well, so we get to a ride that spans the entire film, with an ending that makes you ask why you needed all that. Or how a demented billionaire who apparently is genius enough to design such a biological weapon (and also to become a billionaire) can have such a lame failsafe for his evil plan ...

There's not much more to say. The best part of the movie I think was the presence of Irrfan Khan who stole every scene he was in. That and also getting to see a bit of Florence and Venice. Besides these too much eye-rolling and spontaneously asking yourself "seriously?...", way too much ...

Rating: 2+ out of 5

The Shallows (2016)

"The Shallows" is a "Jaws" reinvented for the 21st century, but made on a 19th century budget. Not meaning that's a bad move...

Nancy, a student in the medical school considering dropping her college degree, finds a hidden beach in a sunny day, somewhere on the coasts of Mexico. Main target: surfing. Unfortunately, if for getting in the water there's no problem, there's a great white shark who doesn't agree about getting out. And like this we have a movie, where Nancy gets stranded on an isolated rock a couple hundred meters away from shore. If she manages to swim that far or not ... well, that's what's the movie about.

Blake Lively does what I think to be her best part so far in a movie (and no matter what you might think :) that's an objective statement). She's basically carrying the movie onward from the beginning to the end .. well, the shark has some screen presence too. The cast is quite reduced, talking about the budget, and the action takes place over an area that doesn't span more than a couple hundred meters, plus the movie is quite short. The effects and the editing count a lot though, enough that you can't think that this is a cheap production. Yes, the story's simple and is pretty far fetched sometimes ... But what shark movies are totally believable? It's fun, is catch as any survival story, and has enough sun to compensate the rain outside ;) So, it's worth watching ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Kon-Tiki (2012)

I have another blog entry to write, but first I have to cover fast something else. Which actually follows my fault of saying last time that Norwegian movies are cold. Well .. they are, but "Kon-Tiki" seems to be an exception.

Somewhere in a corner of my mind where the memory wasn't erased yet, some info was retained somehow sometime, telling me that this movie's subject is an expedition in an ocean somewhere with a more particular mean of transportation. That's all. To conclude: perfect to watch before going to sleep. Fail. I've seen all the story of a journey made on a .. raft, built by centuries old design, from Peru to French Polynesia (6900km), driven by a group of 6 crazy Norwegians, all of them surviving till the end.

The movie is the real version of the classic epic stranded-on-the-wide-sea story (who is not actually stranded in this movie). Meaning, the type of film that presents a ton of problems that show up in the middle of the ocean. The unbelievable part is the happy ending (a real one), and the movie somehow manages to keep that spirit up from start to finish = you don't really get a reason of doubt. And this comes in a context where is impossible not to think that in 9 out of 10 cases the ending would've been different. Not here ...

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Walk (2015)

If you've seen "Man on Wire", a very trendy documentary several years ago, you know what to expect in "The Walk". A biopic about the wire crossing of the twin towers in New York done in 1974. Author: Philippe Petit, a French guy with some experience in "the field" and lots of guts to try it out. I don't have time to write, so I'm sorry but I'm gonna stick to the essence of this: the story always seemed to me to be the perfect example of unjustified selfishness. Even just for the fact that the guy got into the whole illegal action a bunch of friends to help him do it. There's also the risk itself = to put your life at stake for the glory of a couple minutes show with an ad-hoc audience ... for me at least that's again a form of selfishness. The documentary I mentioned, very appreciated by the critics, made my opinion even stronger. The movie tough ... managed to achieve something that I wasn't expecting. To make me give a second thought about this. What if, when you try something crazy, you have somewhere a certain feeling that will work out ...

One last thing, checking out the current "peaks" in cinemas: Those towers might have been like 20 times shorter than Everest, but the movie is somewhere at 5 classes above ;) the 3D and all the rest ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

When I've heard about a remake for "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." I've been very skeptical. I considered it just a trend movie in the endless row of genre flicks released this year: "Kingsman", "Spy", "Mission Impossible" and even the next Bond. Something along the lines "spy movies summer; it will sell". Besides that, loooooong long ago I've watched a couple episodes of the original series starring Robert Vaughn and David McCallum, and finding out that the leads for the Solo/Kuryakin couple are Superman and The Lone Ranger (= Henry Cavill + Armie Hammer) I said niet, it's a no go ... Oh, was I wrong or what? ...

The story ... well, a spy story in the '60s - something "classic" - a neo-nazi secret organization with a nuclear bomb and world domination on the agenda. Details are not important. They'll be when you'll watch the movie, not now. The way this thing is presented is important, or how to serve a bottle of aged Bond, aged in an oak barrel and just taken out of the wine cellar. Like I said, it's been ages since I've seen some of the original series. I vaguely remember the comic nuance that was present there. The new American-Russian spy couple keeps that but it still seems quite different. The character differences between the two are much more emphasized, e.g., the American charm vs. the Russian rigor. And it works. It works very well, and the two leads do their job perfectly.

The movie itself: what we have here is a jewel. It's without question the best I've seen this year as a cinematographic composition meaning the mix between the camera work, soundtrack and editing (yes, better than Mad Max). I can say that I'm impressed to notice that there are still cases of mainstream cinema, of 100% entertainment when you can catch a frame shot in style. Yeah, I know .. It's a clear reference to the '60s cinematography meant to impress through that, reversed perspectives, zoom out, editing with visual splits on the same frame with parallel action, etc. Doesn't matter ... The point is that the result looks very good. The sound - think on Tarantino movies. Enough said.

So, the answer for the start question is yes ... I was wrong. I forgot that the movie is directed by Guy Ritchie. Or, to be specific, I didn't notice that from all the movies he did there wasn't any that on my scale wasn't at least medium above average (even "Swept Away" got on the floating level - no pun intended - was ok for me). Probably the biggest plus in this whole production is given by the directing + script, and it's simply that at no time this wants to be another Bond, but just a fun movie, no constraints attached :) ...

Rating: 5 out of 5

Largo Winch (2008)

I've seen "Largo Winch" around three weeks ago during a sleepless night, and since then I want to write an entry about it and I don't have time. Finally, I said that a short one would be better than nothing .. So, here we are. It's been quite a while since I had such a nice surprise coming from a comics based movie. However, there are two things to point out here, that make this different from the consistent batch of such stuff we had in the latest years: 1. it's not a super-hero movie 2. it's an European production (as well as the comics).

The story in brief: a magnate, owner of a big corporation, dies by drowning. The surprise of the administration council when getting ready to take over, the deceased has an heir, an adoptive son kept away for a long long time. From here onward we get "the origin story", somehow similar to the first part of any super hero franchise, but with the difference that we're kept in the credible realm of normality (= no superpowered spiders, no devices for heart powering, no SciFi stuff). "The origin story" goes along very well with the current action - being actually part of it, stuff that probably makes the difference between what we have here and the typical made in Hollywood material.

Probably there's more to say. The location setting for instance is flawless, despite the budget which I doubt is very big. There's also a sequel that I heard it's not as good, so I'll probably skip it just to avoid spoiling the impression I got. Which, given what we normally have in the genre, tends to max ... if it wouldn't be for a small problem ... the acting. Couldn't just be perfect :) ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Jurassic World (2015)

After more than 20 years since "Jurassic Park" and two less fortunate sequels, we're back on Isla Nublar where the story started. Somehow, despite the previous gruesome experiences, InGen (the owner company) finally managed to open the park for public, re-branded as "Jurassic World" and functioning at full capacity = somewhere at > 20.000 visitors present on the island. Or to put it differently, more than 20 thousand walking steaks for the dinosaurs lunch. Predictable, right ? :)

It's sort of rhetorical to discuss the subject of a "disaster movie", since this is what we have here after all. Obviously the situation will get out of control, the word end will come, and somehow everything will magically solve out. Because of this standard recipe, I generally avoid disaster movies. They're boring. The "Jurassic" series is the exception. I don't know if that's because the "disaster" = the dinosaurs is more exotic, or purely due to nostalgia related to the first movie I've seen in a fully packed cinema. Somehow, each movie managed to pass my "like" threshold, at least a bit. The recipe works again: it's summer, we have a tropical island, and the velociraptors have their hunting ground ready for play. Unlike a typical "disaster movie" (= asteroids, earthquakes, volcanoes) here the thrill effect is a different one. It might sound a bit strange as comparison, but it feels you have something more in common with a zombie horror a la Romero, where the survivors group must face a more dynamical, less predictable and hungry danger :) And that makes it fun ...

The contrast between a welcoming environment and the growing terror in it will always result in a "catchy" effect. No matter if, following the example above, we're speaking of zombie hordes keeping a mall under siege, or dinosaur hordes left loose on a vacation resort. As much as this movie gains from the context feeling, it unfortunately looses due to "SciFi" scenes like (spoilers) unpredictable alliances between T-Rex and raptors or the idea to use dinosaurs as hunting dogs. Even so, I liked it. It definitely has something from "the adventure feeling" of the first "Jurassic Park" specific for the '80s-'90s, something that sort of got lost in time. So, obviously subjective :) ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

I'm really struggling lately to keep this blog active. Which gives longer and longer delays from time x when I see a movie to time y when I manage to write an entry. There's a good part in this, as I said also before, and that's the ability to select better movies. And "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the perfect example.

I don't like the super-hero genre, and I guess that's not something new for who's been reading this blog. The effect is that, with few exceptions = "Iron Man 3" or the first "Captain America", to not be very fond of what Marvel is producing. When I've seen the first trailer for "Guardians of the Galaxy" - featuring "Blue Swede - Hooked on a Feeling" - I knew this is something else. And not just because it seemed clear enough that "GotG" is not a super-hero movie. But because I had the same feeling as when I've seen the trailers for "John Carter", the last "Star Trek"s, or even "Prince of Persia" or "The Lone Ranger". Yup, I know ... More than half of this enumeration was a box-office flop = I doubt there are many who liked all these ( except myself of course :) ). But all these have something in common. A story that is set in a complex SciFi/Fantasy world (well, less on "Lone Ranger", although that movie can be considered a SciFi in its own way), story that features a decent number of secondary threads, told in a witty & lighthearted manner, enough to give that "epic feeling" that you could find some time ago in "Star Wars" & "Indiana Jones". So .. the story in "GotG" ...

Is about an orb capable to tear down worlds, and 5 individuals of different "nationalities" who somehow reach to the conclusion that it might have sense to try securing the device for the greater good of the galaxy. Seems quite simple & tame as subject, right ? Well, here comes that part about secondary threads mentioned above. Without many spoilers, let's take a prison escape sequence as example. When in that sequence we have an escape plan featuring some surprise elements, one character of the 5 being introduced along with his background, the main hero with some childhood "issues" that require a detour from the plan, we can already talk about a sort of mini-episode inside the main story. This style of building-up adds a lot to the narrative, and even if the main thread stays simple, what's built along it is more than enough to say that you've seen an actual movie and not something like a VFX demo (e.g., "Transformers").

That's enough. This movie is so good, that I really don't want to spoil more. You should just see it. I have a single regret. I don't like Zoe Saldana = I was quite disappointed by the casting choice for the main female character ... but well .. Besides that, we obviously have some eye-rolling causing moments, but not that many. I don't have anything else negative left to say :) If I get back a bit to the titles list in the beginning (which I think I've enumerated at least partially also for other occasions), I can observe another relatively common thing: the anti-hero trait, which at least for me is quite catchy. And I think it gives way more potential to exploit to a movie than the opposite - and you can see this a lot here where we have 5 of them ;)

Rating: 5 out of 5

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

I'm sorry that I didn't write about "DotPotA" ( that's a strange acronym :) ) two weeks ago when I've seen it. But I really didn't have the time. I still don't, but if I wait longer it'll fly away completely from my head. So, better a short entry, than nothing ;) ...

From the first movie I remember the VFX, which were outstanding at the time. As story was ok, but nothing unexpected or very impressive. The second movie resumes the action at some years after the first ended, when humanity was decimated by an ape flu. Caesar (the "alpha" chimp in the first part) established his own kingdom, ruling with a semi-democracy, having as one base rule "apes don't kill apes". The problems start when the extinct humanity is apparently not that extinct ... More precisely, a small group of survivors enters the ape territory with the intention to fix a hydraulic plant. Without this the future seems dark & gloomy (non-figuratively), despite the flu immunity that the larger community who sent the small group seems to possess. What's next, you'll see ...

I said I'm gonna be short. I will give only one "spoiler". For quite some time in the movie you have the impression that ... ok, what I see is a decent story, but I know how's gonna develop and what will be the end. At some point I've even got to making connections with "Lion King" = you see it coming from far for the main evil character. However, what the trailer below doesn't give (and I'm not gonna say) is how the conflict actually starts, how it evolves, and how the rest of characters split between good and evil ... If you can define good/evil, because at some point, the movie has the merit to leave aside the commercial aspect of taking sides, and to notice something valid for any conflict - there's not much place left for good ...

Rating: 4 out of 5 ( because overall was nice, better than the first, and I'm in a good mood ;) )

Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story (2001)

I see that somehow it happens close to Easter to sync with a movie that has golden eggs = another adaptation of "Jack and the Beanstalk". Well, at least last year it was the same .. I don't know how many other versions are left there, but now we're talking about ... "The Real Story", so maybe I can stop after this one. Anyway, if the last entries were written in a rush because I didn't have time, now I'm somewhere between headaches & stomach pains, so I'll try to cut it short again ...

What I've just watched is a pretty old mini-series, made for TV. And that's visible in the budget, effects and production design overall = don't expect much. Probably also to the budget relates the acting level too = there are enough scenes that seem done with a single take, like it wasn't time for more than that. Still Mia Sara was charming, as usual, so .. let's get over this, although ... We're getting to the script which is also a mess: stupid lines, plot holes and lots of cheesy stuff. If I should pick now a movie for which I have to make a certain bet that who sees it cannot hold from eye-rolling, "Jack and the Beanstalk" is the winner. And still ...

And still we have something that I've left for the end this time, just to wrap it up on the plus side: the story. Yup ... the story starts with Jack, who's not as expected the poor countryside kid who made a bad bargain in selling a cow for some beans (well .. we have that too, but a bit further). Jack is the chairman of a gigantic enterprise running business that spans from ecologic agriculture to gambling. The problem is that Jack gets close to 40, age at which all the male genealogical tree side moved the domicile two-feet-under. But our guy is less concerned about the "curse" and more of a problem that appears somewhere on British territory, at the family's castle that should be transformed in a casino. The excavation work get stuck into a gigantic skeleton ... take a wild guess who was buried there ;) Well, further we get somehow to "the classic story", and quickly after we learn "the real story" version of it, about which I'm not gonna say anything. Except that it mixes somehow drama, romance, comedy, very dark secrets, (sort of) time travel, and others. A very surprising melange I would say, and one I can truly appreciate for the originality of the ideas. However, the authors probably got bored when it came to the part where the story has to be translated into an actual screenplay. But if you like fairytales ;) and especially re-told in a different manner ... this one deserves a try.

Rating: 3 out of 5 (at the bottom limit)


Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story (2001) by m0vietrailerpark