Maggie-Daddy's Little Zombie

Maggie...quite possibly the oddest Arnold Schwarzeneggar movie I've seen. A zombie apocalypse movie whose focus is one guy taking care of his daughter as she slowly begins to waste away from the disease and become one of the undead. You expect Arnie to bust out in a zombie slaying fury, piling them up by the metric ton. Nope. None of that. Picture the warm family fuzzies from Jericho, with no gunplay, at any moment. It actually works, but it feels weird the whole time, because of the cinematic repetoire Arnie brings with him. Thing is, he's really pretty good at this, which involves him being a real actor.

My late trailer impressions re. Star Wars The Force Awakens...

       Three trailers later, JJ Abrams continues to play cagey and coy, proving to be the master of the mystery box, showing much but revealing little.  That's just how he rolls.  It stirs up interest, it generates conversation and free media coverage.  In an age where you have a zillion media channels, it pays when you have free helpers commenting, sharing, and cutting/pasting what you do, turning into a free branch of your marketing machine.  And Abrams is the true master of that skill.

        He loves Star Wars, too.  After being handed the keys to the Star Trek universe and putting that franchise back in the public eye, one that admittedly he isn't a fanboy of and one where the fan opinion on his work is sharply divided, he gets the keys to the kingdom of the other big science fiction franchise, the one that he does love and counts as one of his biggest inspirations to what he does in life.  Can he do it?  And will fans give him a chance?

        Let us examine the evidence...

        First off, I enjoy JJ Abrams' Star Trek movies.  The things they do well, they really do well.  Contrary to the griping of some fans, he has captured the original characters in feel and portrayal.  He has thrown in some different elements, like the characters being more raw, less refined and experienced, in some cases less comfortable in their skin.  But he has captured the more elemental natures of their personalities.  He has successfully brought familiar elements out and captured the simpler essences of their onscreen chemistry.  He has recast the TOS characters and successfully brought them to life again.  This is in itself a feat, one many fans said could not be done (perhaps they should stop saying that.  It has been proven wrong repeatedly).  He has brought the Trek universe back to life in vivid visual terms and captured a human  rawness, even a frontier spirit, even better than original Trek did.  Now, mind you, I am a prime timeline fan.  And that deep history I've been with for many years that JJ Abrams tossed into another timeline has me not really interested in the ancillary media that has since been published.  And I sense I am not alone in that respect.  Fans want Star Trek.  This is Star Trek, but an alternate timeline story.  We are ok with that, if it is, say, a universe that is acknowledged as an alternate timeline (Mirror Mirror U, etc).  But this is almost like Lucas producing the Special Edition Star Wars films and insisting the original cuts don't exist anymore, refusing to acknowledge them.  I'm ok with these films and their new timeline.  But if/when they do get around to a new TV series, I want the Prime Universe back.  I'll follow one in this new timeline, but it is the Trek Prime Universe that is truly "home".  So, novels, comics, videogames...Prime or nothing for me.

        Abrams is clearly a fanboy, big time.  And he is playing in playgrounds that so many of us dream to on a professional level.  Star Trek is one of those beloved playgrounds that have inspired so many.  The roots go deep, DEEP.  Abrams is not one of those fans.  Which in itself is not a bad thing.  Nicholas Meyer was not a fanboy, yet went on to be central in creating some of the most beloved Star Trek adventures ever (STWOK, STTUC).  However, Meyers was able to do this because he was able to see Trek clearly.  And he got it.  In Star Trek, even when the action is high and swashbuckling, the thing that makes it stand out is that it is cerebral.  It cares severely about the why of things.  Who we are, what is the meaning, why do we do all what we do?  Can we do better?  Should we do better?  What is better?  Star Trek cares about all this and so much more and its fans tend to do the  same.  Abrams, however, is on record as saying, "Star Trek was too philosophical" for him.

       Now, I am a LOST fan.  I love the ending far more than most.  Ambiguous endings, metaphysical endings, I love all those.  To me, life is more about the Mystery than the concrete answers.  So demanding all your fiction have its plot elements tied up in a nice, neat package at the end, even more that can entirely be explained by "rules", is silly.  Life is mystery.  Stories can be mystery.  You want all your loose ends taken care of in the end?  Watch Murder She Wrote.  And yes, LOST could be a deeply philosophical show.  But...here's the key difference.  Star Trek wants you to think.  In the thinking, you will often feel.  But the emotions are just a bonus.  And often optional.  Like Spock, Trek fans can sometimes be uncomfortable with emotional expression and sensation and prefer logic and Data.  Less complicated, "right" answers (not really, but the illusion is often there). So the emotion first approach of LOST with no real answers, or seeming contradictory ones confuse them.

       Which brings us to Star Wars.  It is a curious thing in scifi/fantasy fandom that we see tribal tendencies popping up.  Rivalries drawing up battle lines, harsh rhetoric, this has been going on for ages, die hard fans of both franchises giving each other the stink eye, never mind that many, if not most fans are actually fans of both.  I have met partial partisans of both camps, though I don't pretend to understand them.  I am a huge fan of both franchises (but will admit, if pressed, bigger Star Trek fan).  The rivalry I see as kind of pointless, as both are fundamentally different kinds of science fiction.  Star Trek has always attempted to attach itself to the real world.  It has used science fiction allegory to take a look at real world issues from different angles that a distance in time and space uniquely allows.  It also traditionally tries to build a hopeful, plausible future that gives humanity possibilities to which we can aspire.  Star Wars, on the other hand, has never tried to tie itself to the "real world".  Right in the beginning, it says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...".  It has always put itself in another world and has never tried to make its astronomy, technology, theology, politics or anything else follow any "real world" rules.  It is about elemental simplicity in those elements, just create a universe with a distinct feel.  Which is the essence of Star Wars.  It is not about heavy duty philosophizing (which is not to say that does not go on, it very much does, especially that, spiritual nature, honor, goodness, that kind of thing).  But it is not about those things in the abstract, figuring out "how they work".  It is about FEELING, all those things in the Star Wars universe are how the characters relate to them, how it moves them from one plot point to the next, or both.  Star Wars has little time for sitting around philosophizing abstractly, it is nearly always about how it relates to the players on the screen (which is one way the Prequels got off course, they tried abstract philosophizing, but Lucas didn't know how to do it believably and keep it in the spirit of Star Wars, re. relate it to the characters and their travails and give the audience just enough).

      Which brings us back to Abrams.  Lucas's failures with the Prequel films (which are to various degrees watchable, imo, iffy movies with some very, very good parts that deserve to be in better films) have fans very nervous about what is coming.  But Abrams has been raising hopes with his beautiful trailers of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Abrams, in those trailers, has been doing the two things he does best, emotion and mystery.  We know almost nothing about the plot of the film.  We have intriguing introductions to some new characters and are joyfully shown old, beloved ones.  What we see, what we hear, what we feel, is new, yet familiar.  Abrams is a Star Wars fan from way, way back.  It is safe to assume that he knows the universe and is as well versed in it as any serious fan.  However, he is a master craftsman with a particular style and he further is in the unique position of having just come from shepherding that other major science fiction franchise back onto the cultural map, front and center.  That universe was not one of his major fandoms and frankly was not the best fit for his sensibilities.   Even so, what he did produce was very good (though fan dissatisfaction in some quarters is quite understandable, and here's hoping, going forward, that Trek fully finds itself once again).  But now, Abrams is over there in a galaxy far, far away.  And his twin drivers, emotion and the mystery, and all other elements serving them, are better suited to the Star Wars universe.  Like Han and Chewie, he has "come home".

      It is a mistake to fear both the Prequels experience or that of Abrams' Trek films.  Now, if you just hate JJ Abrams's style, you may be out of luck, but I would suggest if you are a Star Wars fan, you give at least this first film a chance and see where we go from there.

      That is my impression.  But full disclosure, I am an Abrams fan while fully acknowledging his weaknesses.  Despite them, I do believe the Force is once again with us.

The Martian: Under The Right Circumstances, Becoming A Pirate Just Means Borrowing a Rocket...Who Knew?

Used to be, when folks said The Martian, they may have thought of this guy...

 

 



 

 

Or perhaps these...

 

 

The really science fiction aware among you might have even though of this...

 

 

 

Buckle up, space cadets. Mars now has a new face, courtesy of author Andy Weir, director Ridley Scott and actor Matt Damon as astronaut and botanist Mark "Mars will come to fear my botany powers," Mark Watney

 

 

Seems at some point in the not too distant future, our friend Mark will have a run of bad fortune and find himself stranded on the forth planet out from the sun.  What was intended as a stay of a few months will be much longer and Mark, if he is to survive, will need to summon all of his will and skill to overcome all the obstacles Mars will throw at him.  And Mars will do just that.  You see, Mars, right now, is a place not set up for ready survival for humans.  But...given some material and a can-do American spirit, a guy has a chance.

And that is just the scenario presented in the book written by Andy Weir and adapted by filmmaker Ridley Scott, a smart, able, willful guy presented an improbable scenario and challenged to overcome.

There are those who have written of The Martian as being an ode to science.  And it does have that element, not only with our desire to explore and dare to go to those difficult place to broaden our horizons and presence, but overcoming hardship by "doing the math".  But that is not the end of the story, as it were.  The Martian is about those virtues of people in difficult circumstances, willing to make those decisions that don't necessarily have the support of the numbers.  The crew of the Ares, who unwittingly left Watney behind, are willing to risk their careers, their ship and their lives to spend several years in space just to attempt a difficult rescue of their stranded comrade.  The director of NASA, Teddy Sanders (played by Jeff Daniels), is depicted as almost bureaucratic and insensitive at first, but he lives at the top of a pyramid that isn't necessarily the most stable and he has to juggle politics, public perception and mission success, with them sometimes seemingly fiercely competing and he has to make it all work.  Despite the easy trope of making him the evil technocrat, though the movie may dance with it a bit, they never take him down that route.  They create some suspense with him weight hard decisions and taking some risks during the crisis.  Some of them even fail, yet still he carries on.
And then, there's the Chinese.  Again, the temptation might have been there to play them as the villains or the hardball competitors looking to see America fail, even if it cost the lives of astronauts.  But in this film, though there is a sense of rivalry and calculation, which of course there would be, they are also depicted, the Chinese space scientists and admistrators, that is, as ultimately having common cause with the Yankee explorers.

We live in a world with much fear and anger at this point in time.  Some of that is quite real and rational.  Some of it, well, cynical minds might say it is an indictment of our lightning fast mass media and those who manipulate it for various reasons, as well as a gullible public looking for easy answers in a complex, challenging world.  It might be tempting at the time to let the fear take over.

But through it all, the stars beckon us forth, reminding us gently, every night, that when we get around to it, when we decide to focus, a grand adventure awaits.

The Martian is one of those gentle reminders.

Ant-Man: Smaller Marvel film packs a big, ant shaped punch

Ant-Man, the newest opus from Marvel Films, had a troubled birth.  Originally envisioned as a tale entirely disconnected with the bigger Marvel cinematic universe, auteur Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, etc) increasingly bumped up against TPTB at Marvel and eventually fled the project (with some, like fellow creator Joss Whedon protesting openly).  Even though oncoming director Peyton Reed, a talented, sharp director known for Bring It On as well as the star, comic actor Paul Rudd (Scott Lang, the Ant-Man) did some adjustments, the ghost of Edgar Wright remains in the film's feel and sensibilities.  Which is good, because Wright is one of my favorite directors, and his stylistic and storytelling hooks are unmistakable. Such wrangling  behind the scenes has destroyed many a project, though, and that was the fear, that the persistent "creative differences" would claim one more victim and score the first real wound to the Marvel Cinematic U.

However, with consistently good reviews, word of mouth and a certified fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes, Ant-Man has seemingly defied the odds and managed to turn in both a good movie in its own right and add another chapter and dimension to the Marvel Movie Universe that people will be happy to refer back to. Its 58+million box office take in its opening weekend is considered relatively modest for a Marvel film, though still respectable.  Having taken number one at the box office, however, in addition to doing equally well overseas, from its troubled origins with a very obscure character to what appears to be the rumblings of great word of mouth, Ant-Man, for it's hero's short stature, will probably have some really long legs.

Again, I have to admit that these films are talking to both the fanboy comic guy in me as well as the kid, because I know these characters in depth and have been following them since my age was in the single digits.  I'm quite familiar with the tiny, giant adventures of Hank Pym (played in the film by Michael Douglas), Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) and all the various ants brought on board the film.  In fact, I eagerly awaited the Marvel cinematic universe getting to these characters.  I wondered how they were going to touch on it, as the Marvel originals do touch on some dark topics and convoluted ties to Marvel esoterica (Hank Pym is brilliant, but was also at times unstable, abusing his wife, Janet Van Dyne and unwise projects like the creation of Ultron, he had a mad scientist aspect to him).  Most of this, they slyly referenced or deftly breezed over, leaving it for later reference as circumstances permit.  But one essential element they had to address is Janet Van Dyne, Janet Pym, the "air headed heiress", the Wasp.  In the film, she is shown briefly, and is explained as missing and presumed dead, having gone "quantum" in one heroic instance of miniaturization.  She left Hank with a daughter, Hope, who strongly favors the comic depictions of her mother.  At first, the relationship between Hank and Hope is shown as strained, with lots of unresolved baggage.

In comes Scott Lang, engineer and ex-con who needs a break.  Hank is willing to give him that break, a mission to secure his "Pym Particle" technology, which is what makes his miniaturization powers possible.   In a series of training montages where Hank and Hope teach Scott how to punch, talk to ants and use the miniaturization technology, Scott runs through keyholes, teaches ants to juggle pennies and briefly tangles with one of the Avengers in the build up to the break in at Pym's old corporate HQ and confrontation with Hank's former protoge' turned megalomaniac, Darren Cross and the Yellowjacket suit.

It is a heist film with superheroic hijinks.  It is a peek into another obscure character and one of the other mysterious otherrealms of the Marvel universe, in this case, the Microverse.  It is a film that manages to be better, much better, than it probably has a right to be.

Geektastic.  Go see it.

Jurassic World-So, How Does a Sailor Get Known as a Dinosaur Wrangler?

Really, how does a sailor get to be the go-to guy for animal wrangling?  How many jobs do they have in the US Navy that even involve animals?  Dog handlers?  Maybe a select few horse experts?  Some veterinarians and assistants?  The original Jurassic Park, directed by Steven Spielberg and released in 1993 with its stellar cast and a window into a recreated bygone age, dazzled filmgoers that year.  I was working for a movie theater at the time and still would have sat through multiple viewings even if I did not get free movies as a fringe benefit.  The fully realized dinos charmed and awed an audience who previously had only seen stop motion versions of these creatures.  Nascent computer generated imagery and animatronics brought them to life in a way that still stuns today.  So, how do you top that, since topping it you must do?

Well, you create a bigger park.  It is no longer just a Jurassic Park (which still exists as a neglected ruin on Isle Nubar).  The island is now home to a bigger, more lavish and even more high tech and elaborate attraction.  This time, both the Jurassic World management, park manager Claire Dearing (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) claims they have it all right.  And in her meticulously managed world with no room for living systems or chaos, she believes they have a handle on this.  So she is fully ready for a visit from her nephews, Nick and Ty, even to the point, she pawns off their first day at the park on her assistant.  Too busy, dontcha know.  The one cast member from the first film, Dr. Henry Wu, makes his return, in charge of Jurassic World's dinosaur lab.  He is responsible for the new round of creations, including a frankenstein-like beastie that never existed in the real world, dubbed Indominous Rex.  It is a combo of Tyrannosaurus Rex and...classified DNA.  Hm.  I'm sure that won't be a problem.  Oh wait, it is.  And when things do go scaled bellies up, are Chris Pratt's ex-Navy dino expert Owen Grady, bringing wisecracking charm and steely resolve to the mix, along with Vincent D'Onofrio, also former military, with an ambition to prove weaponized dinos as a concept.

Like the first Jurassic, what keeps this movie above just a pretty scifi actioner, besides a really terrific cast, is some underlying philosophy.  Jeff Golblum's Ian Malcom, the chaotician from the first film and the original novel, made the point that, "Your scientists were so concerned about whether they could do this thing, they never stopped to ask themselves if they should." Henry Wu, on the other hand, in an expanded role in Jurassic World, when berated on about the freak factor of Indominus Rex, points out that all the dinos are freak creations.  That modern science had to take shortcuts to bring any of them to life.  And this does not seem to matter to him.  He is the personification of Malcom's cautionary note.  That science alone is not enough.  If it does not have a sense of values and humility tempering its ambition, bad things can happen.

It is not so much a matter of forbidding you meddling in God's domain.  Just keep in mind in your meddlings whose domain it is and having some humble circumspection while you are stumbling in the dark.

That may have been a very large dino footprint you just tripped in.  Try not to scream.

Mad Max-Fury Road: The Fast and the Feminist?

Max Rockatansky rides hard on the roads of the future wasteland in the film Mad Max-Fury Road.  Director George Miller first introduced us to this world and the title character, originally played by Mel Gibson  in 1979.  At first, he was a hard driving police officer struggling to maintain law and order in a civilization and world crumbling about him.  But when he lost his family to a criminal bike gang lead by Toecutter (Hugh Keays-Byrne), the little thread he was hanging onto inside snaps.  Max takes vengeance upon Toecutter's gang and is seen at the end of the original Mad Max driving furiously, seemingly to nowhere, as directionless as his life has become.  The subsequent films, The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome saw him wandering still, alone, stumbling into interesting situations that force him to engage with people that he otherwise would probably avoid.

This brings us to Fury Road.  Max, now played by Tom Hardy, still wanders the wasteland, still alone.  He seems to be an empty shell of a man, purely driven by a spirit that does not allow him to accept death.  He survives to survive and seemingly little more.  He is a silent wanderer who keeps to himself, unless crossed.  Then he explodes into a maelstrom of struggle, determined to extricate himself from whatever has beset his void girded vigil and return to his emptiness, it would seem.  For little else seems to motivate him.  The wasteland is an empty, wan, lonely and seemingly dying place.  But like Max's soul, it has a fierceness at the center and a determination to go on.  And where that continuance takes hold, there is potential for growth anew and hope, though the world and Max may not be aware of this.

So when he is beset by the Warboys of Immorten Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrn again), he at first reacts in his usual manner, fierce determination to survive and escape.   But when in the course of events he comes in contact with Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), a female combat driver in service to Immorten Joe, his guard over time slowly begins to lower and he begins to actively acknowledge the world outside himself once again.  Furiosa has her own agenda.  She has stolen a War Rig (think souped up 18 wheeler) and is making off with Joe's Brides (women who serve only as baby makers to produce War Boys).  She can't have children herself, yet her ability has made her one of the few female warriors in Joe's community.  At some point, though, she decided that was not enough and that she needed to try to return to her people, a tribe of women in the fabled "Green Land".

Along with a feral yet somewhat good natured War Boy named Nux, Max makes common cause with this motley crew and finds the possibility of human connection that he has not known in a very long time.

The visuals of Fury Road are lush, the design work, especially on the vehicles are inspired and insane and the action is quite fast and furious.  The characters are colorful, over the top and understated as the story requires.  Tom Hardy, especially, does Mel Gibson proud in his turn as Max Rockatansky.  Immorten Joe is a menacing, colorful dictator in the true wasteland warlord tradition.  And then there's Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  She is a competent, level headed, formidable female warrior geared for surviving the wasteland.  But she has ideals and faith that the world has not killed and she is willing to fight for them.  Also, refreshingly, there is no romantic subplot between the male and female leads, that is, her and Max.

Some have called this a triumph for feminism.  I disagree. I think it is more due to the vision of George Miller and his unwillingness to buy into cheap Hollywood cliches.  If some find that in line with the political ideologies, more power to them, I guess.  But for me as a storyteller myself, I'm glad to see that Miller's first loyalties are to his own instincts as a creator, rather than to audience surveys, corporate bean counters and the like.  Like Max, he drives on in the direction he wants to go.

Very good time at the cinema.  You should drive there quickly.  But observe traffic and vehicular safety, please.

Avengers-Age of Ultron: A huge cinematic step almost resulting in psychic groin pull

Once upon a time, a boy built a toy robot.  This robot was to be a friend and guardian to all humankind, protecting us from those big threats he knew awaited us.  The boy was good with building machines and he had complete confidence his creation would serve us well.  The problem is, his creation was a bit too smart and had its own ideas on how to "serve".  Big explosions and snarky quips followed.

Thus, we have the cliffiest of Cliff Notes versions of the plot of Avengers-Age of Ultron, the follow-up film to Joss Whedon's sophomore motion picture effort, The Avengers.  For those who haven't been following closely, Marvel Comics has been doing a sensational job bringing its comic book universe to the silver screen (and now small screen, with Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Daredevil and more to come). Whedon came on board with a few script doctorings (he is well known for that) and then, with his creative, offbeat talents demonstrated years before, his love and knowledge of imaginative tales such as comics well established and with a name that carries weight and cultural currency with legions of fans, he was given keys to the Marvel kingdom.  With those, he unlocked the Avengers.  And when that one went on to do record breaking box office business, he naturally was offered the follow-up.  He accepted.

And now, we have Avengers-Age of Ultron burning up the movie charts.  Starting out overseas, it began making bank immediately.  Hitting the US shores, it has pulled in serious bucks for both its opening night and debut weekend and has fans taking in the spectacle in droves.  Despite all of that, does Avengers-Age of Ultron prove itself a worthy film all its own?

Yes.  But that yes does come with some buts.  It is truly a worthwhile spectacle.  The huge budget clearly wasn't wasted.  In a story that takes it clear across the globe, it shows the Avengers team as a global force, taking the fight to evil wherever they are.  They aren't just a New York or even a team that just concerns itself with stateside threats.  So the action is huge, epic and amazing, with shots clearly choreographed to evoke comic panels.  But...it is an assault on the senses and it is so...much at times, it becomes almost physically exhausting.

Fortunately, things are broken up with plentiful well written character moments.  Not only are they recognizably in character, acknowledging the characters' comic roots as well as their past cinematic adventures, they establish these characters aren't just costumes.  They are hearts and souls, wounded ones in many cases.  However, the snark does come across a little heavy at times.  The first Avengers movie had only a couple of moments where Whedon seemed to be reaching a bit far for the joke.  The sequel, though most of the jokes hit home, had a few that made you feel that Whedon was trying a bit too hard for the funny.  A straight line, or perhaps just grim silence might have been better for a couple of moments.

Lots of new characters were introduced in this film, as well as new ones previously introduced were brought on board for the follies.  Again, in the hands of a lesser storyteller, this movie would have taken on a Batman and Robin level of bloat.  Joss Whedon knows these characters, loves them, knows what makes them tick.  So they all had moments and they all rang true.  But you did get the sensation of an overstuffed sausage at moments, filled to bursting.  Whedon has said he left over an hour of film on the editing floor.  With more film, this movie might have felt a little less stuffed.  However, it would have clocked in at over three hours at that point.  Here's hoping we see what didn't make the cut on the Blu Ray.

Finally, the movie does have some great poignant comments about modern world situations.  Raw power is not necessarily enough to set things right alone.  Technology and tools don't necessarily bring you the results the designer intended, as Tony Stark is loathe to admit.  Ultimately, this is a human world needing human solutions.  Even the machines acknowledge our power, seeing us as either the great threat to be exterminated (Ultron) or unique creations not to be dismissed (The Vision, played immensely by Paul Bettany).

Avengers-Age of Ultron is huge.  It is a grand chapter in the world of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a satisfactory film through which Joss Whedon can exit his part in this play.  It is not problem free, but if the Marvel Universe is one you want to follow, this is a step you can take with satisfaction.