EarthsConflict

This is the Unforgiven of superhero movies, a brutal yet tender portrayal of former heroes growing old. Logan is tired and world weary, waiting for death to take away his pain. Charles is 90, riddled with drugs to mute his mind, his "super weapon." Despite their friendship their relationship is fractured. Into their lives comes a new mutant and a road trip begins.

I don't want to say much more, having given away a little of the premise already explored in the films trailers. This is a tough, violent and sad film with few moments of humour. There is action but not of the blockbuster kind, one key car chase is like something from a 70's thriller.

This is the swan song of Logan and Charles, both actors giving it their all in their final performances as these characters. To bring them back after this film would undermine their work and the story here.

The film is brilliant and I can't recommend it enough - don't expect a traditional X-Men movie and you will be blown away. If the film itself were a mutant I would say its genes had been spliced with Mad Max and Shane, with a little bit of Children of the Corn (and I mean that in a good way). Excelsior!

On Valentine's Day 2010, Caroline Thomas visits Union Station for the 65th time, hoping her husband Neil will return. The friendly conductor says she's been on time every year for the 25 years he has worked there.

Susan is a reporter for the TV news magazine "American Diary", and she is tired of stories that she does not consider meaningful. Still, she gets sent to do an interview with Caroline, which she considers more of the same. She's about to find out this is the best story she has ever done, and one of her show's best stories as well.

Andrew, whose job involves lots of travel, proposes to Susan in front of their friends, but Susan rejects him because the proposal was not romantic enough--and not done in private. Andrew goes off on his latest trip.

Susan and her crew meet Caroline, who is reluctant to do an interview at first. Caroline is persuaded when Susan claims to know her grandson Lucas, a physical therapist who she met once. Lucas helps talk his grandmother into doing the interview, and it becomes clear that Lucas may be a better match for Susan than Andrew.

Through flashbacks narrated by Caroline, we learn that Caroline and Neil met but did not have a relationship at first, but then they became reacquainted after Neil became a Navy pilot in World War II. At the time, Neil was not part of the fighting, and he and Caroline married and moved into a rundown house which they fixed up (and they must have done a good job because Caroline still lives there). Then, after Caroline was already pregnant, Neil decided he had to join the war. In one of the first flashbacks we see Neil getting on the train and Caroline handing him a handmade heart--a very emotional scene. One wonders if this couple will ever be able to separate.

During the war, Caroline receives numerous letters from Neil, but she occasionally sees the Western Union man delivering bad news to her neighbors. And then one day it's her turn.

But missing does not mean dead. Susan and Caroline become good friends, and Susan has become quite fond of Lucas as he has helped her with back problems. And she really wants to find the conclusion to the story. There are clues as to what may have happened to Neil to keep him from coming back.

Meanwhile, though Susan and Andrew are not getting along, Andrew has connections in the Phillipines, where Neil was last seen. The investigation uncovers a wonderful story, which is well-done, though I shouldn't give away too many details.

The final scenes prove a worthy tribute to our men (and women) in uniform, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Betty White gives the best performance of all, and I expect to hear about her when Emmy nominations are announced. Although she is best known for comedy, she delivers a full range of emotion, sometimes demonstrating her comic abilities but also achieving fine results with drama. Yes, there is heartbreak, but it's not all bad.

Jennifer Love Hewitt does a good job here, though I have to say her scenes with Andrew seemed more like a Canadian Lifetime TV-movie than a Hallmark Hall of Fame. She and Sean Faris have much more appeal, and even give us some laughs in a movie that really needs them.

Billy Magnussen and Meghann Fahy both do a good job as the leading cast members from World War II. They too have a couple of scenes with some laughs, but they mostly deliver real drama.

I really liked the World War II music in the flashbacks. Mostly, though, these scenes had the pleasant orchestra music that seems almost boring by comparison to the high-energy jazz from wartime.:clap::clap::clap::broken_heart::broken_heart::broken_heart::sob::sob:

Skylines aka Skylin3s is a bad movie. Just like Skyline and Beyond Skyline before it. Skyline was a movie directed by special effects guys that looks like a special effects demo piece. But between Beyond Skyline and Skylines they've managed to do the unthinkable. They've created potential. I don't walk away from Skylines thinking about how bad it is. My first thought isn’t about how bad it was that an effects-based movie will randomly and for no reason suddenly have CGI so bad that it looks like I myself made the movie. I'm not walking away thinking about the bad underdeveloped flat characters and sub-par acting. I left this movie and somehow my first feeling was disappointed. Disappointed that after flipping the genre 3 times no one made anything of ANY of them, the effect film wasn’t good, the action film wasn’t good, the sci-fi heist film wasn’t good.

Beyond Skyline took off from plotless movie (Skyline) and spend half of its own runtime setting up the last half of its runtime, which was an action set piece. It was even a fun action set piece. I liked a lot of it actually. But I was still mid headache from realizing that I spent half the movie watching things not happen. It was almost as bad at Pirate of the Caribbean 2. Beyond Skyline even sets up cliffhanger sequel bait that was, dare I say, compelling. I legitimately wanted to see what came next and considering the quality of the movies up to that point, I remain shocked.

Somehow Skylines, which opens in the first three minutes by completely skipping over that giant space battle/opera that was setup in the last movie, does the most to setup the world. It has the biggest and most interesting world to play in. And yet it fails on EVERY level to do anything with it. I mean for crying out loud there are human brains in alien machine bodies and none of this is explored. Do they still age? How long do they last? Do they have a unique culture? There's a hint that the hybrids were accepted as human but what does that look like? Do people have new relationships with these hybrids? Do they engage in old ones? Yet the movie then forgets all of that complexity in spite of the fact that the bad guy is represented as bad in part because he is prejudice against the hybrids in a world that we’re told completely accepts them. In the last third the film sets up the hybrids as killing fodder and so it is with zero remorse or thought they're slaughtered in fight scenes. There's no exploration of prejudice which must exist in this scenario. It can’t just be our main bad guy. After all it’s shown that he has help. His project is way too big to have done it himself. It's just a mish mash of ideas. Many of the ideas presented are good and interesting some of them would even make compelling dramatic sci-fi pieces all by themselves but in the Skyline franchise they're just completely empty of fleshing out. In spite of what the characters will say nothing matters and no one cares. The movie has two main hybrids Trent and Violet and they’re interesting. They’re actually interesting and unique characters. Violet is hardcore pro-rebellion even getting her tank body spray painted. Trent is the only hybrid we’ve seen created that’s still alive. We saw him as a human and saw him as a hybrid. We know what he was like as a human, we can imagine him transformed into this hybrid. And yet somehow the human characters are even more flat than them. We have a bad guy, we have a minor bad guy, we have the guy who hates Rose for what happened in the prologue, we have the specialist it’s all so rote and uninteresting set in a world that is teaming with interesting things the movie just doesn’t want to talk about. Like why do these aliens harvest brains only to refuse to use them what purpose do the brains serve the the bodies don’t? Why is the earth human relations the way they are? There seems to be a human government and yet there are encampments? Why? Who rejects humans? Why is Rose so hunted when she is clearly so despised? And that’s just shooting from the hip. In the corner of every scene is something interesting something that could flesh out the people or the world and the movie just doesn’t have time for that.

I can see why people might enjoy this one but it's just sad how much it could have been. The creature designs are solid, the alien voice isn't annoying. The main character is unique for reasons that aren't explained or explored. The bad guy is just the right kind of bad to be enjoyable except he's bad for no reason. There are baits and switch but it's hard to care about them because I don't care about the characters. As soon as you see the setup of a heist on an alien planet you know it's bad when you're mostly wondering which one will be sacrificed on the altar of "this is really dangerous. . see Person X just died". Our main character has so much potential for complex motivations and the movie skips over all of them. Rose hesitates to fire on the alien ship, and it could have been a moment of learning about the aliens about her about anything and instead it's only referenced in a throwaway motivational monolog. Skylines is the movie that couldn’t. Shame.

LIFF33 2019 #3

“If God gives us free will, we are responsible for what we do or what we fail to do.”

Ambitious, but strangely simple.

A true and powerful story told in a very Malick way. Based on letters written in Austria during Hitler’s early reigns; ‘A Hidden Life’ follows a husband and wife objecting the Nazi party - which unfortunately leads to the husbands imprisonment and his wife being persecuted by villagers, all friends and neighbours for decades - all become enemies.

The camera work and cinematography were all excellent, of course with it being a Terrance Malick movie. Free flowing camera movement that often drifts around the actors and looms over these people's lives - often getting up close and personal. There are some powerhouse performances from everyone as Malick effectively lets the actors work freely by improvising on the spot and being present in the moment. So we get to experience Franz and his wife Franziska (along with their children) living in the present and how beautifully poetic it can be. So we can briefly live the life of these people before the horrors of war ruin everything. The little moments we take for granted.

Apparently whenever an actor gets dry on camera, Malick would gently push them forward and tell them to keep going - in terms of activity and discovering new things while losing a train of thought and reverie in character. I think this is the reason why the actors always give such raw and natural performances. I would imagine it also helps them develop and personally attach themselves to the character in bolder lengths, because they can never do wrong.

Although it didn’t need to be three hours long and could have easily been 2 hours. I had issues with how long the movie stayed in one setting, as it dragged the pacing down a bit. I must admit there was a point where I nearly dozed off, not because it was boring, but prior to watching I had a long day that pretty much drained me and the movie at times didn’t help. However there was a point mid way through where the movie woke me up, which is incredibly rare for an art house movie.

I’ll give Malick credit, nobody makes movies like he does. Love it or hate it, but no other director has come close to finding the inner heart and soul in nature that’s with human beings. I think it’s easy to look at his work and label them as “pretentious”. His approach to narration is incredibly jumbled, but more truthful than movie dialogue, because we don’t mean what we say most of the time; a rambling mess. I often find the people who dismiss him and think they know about ‘keeping it real’, are the pretentious ones.

The unique thing about this movie and his previous work, when the movie is over you start to notice nature and I really do mean notice nature - something you would have never done before. Such as: grass and leaves dancing in the wind, natural light, the warmth of the sun touching your skin, and the smell of nature. It’s incredibly compelling how a movie can activate my senses that I haven’t experience in a very long time, dating back to childhood.

“Nostalgia is a powerful feeling; it can drown out anything.”

Overall rating: A welcome return to form.

For the life of me, I can't figure out who provided the "Voice" (that's all the script says) for the lock to which the Ankh is the key. It sounds so familiar, but none of the cast list jumped out at me. Searching "who played the voice in logan's run" isn't exactly going to return useful results. So… If anyone knows the name of the actor, I'd love to find out! It's making me a little nuts.

As usual, I'm going to nitpick first, then get into the bigger picture. (How this became my review format, I don't know, but it works.) There are many things worth nitpicking, actually. The visual effects in this film were surprisingly underwhelming, considering it came out only a year before Star Wars (1977). Lots of small details seemed off, and the film's IMDB listing has a pretty fat "Goofs" page. But only these struck me enough to write them down while watching.

The Carousel ritual has a couple of oddities. The performers' wires are clearly visible, as are the attachment points on their costumes. (Allegedly, director Michael Anderson is rather emphatic in saying that no wires are visible in the DVD commentary. I do not have this commentary available, so I have to trust IMDB. They really are very obvious.) And, it looks like one of the flying participants is pregnant. I don't see that referenced anywhere in trivia sources I consulted, and perhaps my eyes deceived me as I watched the film, but it really does appear so.

It was awfully convenient that Logan forgot he had an Ankh of his own, so Jessica's could be fumbled into the water for Francis to find later. (Smells like contrived writing, born of having no better ideas on how to get Francis outside with them.)

The grates Logan and Jessica remove inside the seawater intake system seem awfully easy to dislodge. I wonder just how they've managed to stay put for so many years. With 6 generations (roughly) of 30 years, that puts the construction of the power facility about two centuries in the past. Pretty impressive, since no one is allowed outside the city. How do they maintain outside equipment, anyway?

I know I've already mentioned the visual effects, in the nitpick section above, but it bears repeating: The effects in Logan's Run were underwhelming even after taking into account the age of the film. From obvious matte paintings and miniatures to just straight-up bad double-exposure work, I found myself really struggling to ignore the technical side of the movie to focus on its story.

Broadly, the story is a good one. It's perhaps an overdone trope these days—a post-apocalyptic, dystopian society with arbitrary rules that one person finally feels must change—but I must imagine this kind of story was slightly rarer 40 years ago. And even now, it hasn't really gotten old seeing a future human civilization rediscover what it means to be human.

The single largest omission from the screenplay, I thought, was world-building. We almost learn more about what life is like for the old man, outside the city dome, than what it's like inside. There's a vague sense of how hedonistic life in the city can be. Jessica appears as Logan channel-surfs "the circuit", seemingly a way for city residents to offer themselves up for sex. Francis appears with two "screamers" (oh yeah, that's subtle) for a party shortly after. There is, of course, the "Love Shop" scene—shorter than originally intended, but probably as long as was necessary. But most of the "regular people" we see are swimming, shopping, working out… I have no clear sense of what people in the domed city actually do all day.

It's implied that children are raised by machine, perhaps. It seems parents do not exist. The city residents might even be sterile by design (perhaps a surgical procedure performed shortly after birth). They can have orgies every day and not worry about birth control. Conception of children may be regulated by the city computer, just as is the "termination" of those who have reached Lastday.

For all the statement it makes, having such a world, it still feels like an empty premise. The city computer, which seems to have an obsession with tracking down Sanctuary, has a distressingly small role in the story. Logan's "surrogates" have a bigger part than the computer does, practically. (And those visual effects were… weird.)

I guess what I really wanted was "more villain". Also a better ending (because the city exploding after Logan's report fries the computer made no sense to me). But it's not a bad film. It's enjoyable, even thought-provoking. Just not as much as I expected.

Do not watch this movie. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone definitely make a cute couple. They should just produce a romance with them. Wait for that movie instead of watching this now.
The characters seem to loose dimension. The plot between Peter and Gwen is basically:
"I am going to go." - "No don't go." - "Yes, I will go." - "Don't go away", etc. Who wrote that?
And then there are the two villains... Electro is a laughably 1 dimensional character that is simply ridiculous when he is still a human. As other form, he can atleast fight, kind of. The action scenes were actually so bad that I wanted to watch the whole "I will go to somewhere else" thingy Peter and Gwen got going on.
The green goblin is not too bad, however there are so many enemies in the Spider-Man universe, I don't think they should've brought one of the few back there were in the original trilogy. However, I already should've stopped watching when Electro first appeared, so what does it really matter anyways.

In conclusion:
- Weak characters development from the first movie "simplified", terrible dialog, missed potential, laughably terrible villain
+ Cute couple, 1 villain that is not complete %$§&
Do not watch this movie.

Synopsis: Walter, a lifelong fan of Kermit, Miss Piggy and crew, dreams of visiting the Muppet studio. When he, his brother Gary, and Gary's significant other, Mary (Amy Adams), finally make the trek over there, they discover that it's been largely abandoned. Worse yet, Walter overhears an evil tycoon's plan to buy the Muppet studio only to dig up the oil reserve beneath it. The only way the nefarious scheme can be stopped is if Kermit and friends can raise ten million dollars. Kermit assembles the old crew together to put on a benefit...but, that nefarious oil baron will stop at nothing to be the owner of the Muppet studios. Will Kermie prevail in the end?
Features appearances by Jack Black, Whoopi Goldberg, Neil Patrick Harris, Selena Gomez, Emily Blunt, and several other celebrities.

The Good: After Jim Henson died, the Muppet franchise went into a downward spiral. Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets from Space were pretty good...but, after the mediocre and somewhat crude It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie, the absolutely horrible The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, and the inane A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa, things seemed bleak for Kermit and crew. Well, I'm happy to say that this film brings back the Muppet magic. It's a serious throwback to a time when movies were made to simply be enjoyed, not picked apart for hidden meanings. Humor abounds; the musical numbers were great; the heroes were likable; the villain was utterly despicable; and, there's many a cute moment.

The Bad: Unfortunately, the makers felt the need to add some occasional crude bits, though it's nowhere near as egregious as in the other Muppet flicks mentioned above. Without them, this movie could have scored a "G".

Conclusion: I grew up watching the Muppets in various forms: movies, both older and newer; Muppet Babies; Muppets Tonight; and, yes, even Fraggle Rock. That may make me a bit biased, but, I still had a blast with this movie. Say what you will about Disney; they brought back the Muppets to their former glory. Whereas the movies from the 2000s would have made Jim Henson turn in his grave, this would have made the late Muppet creator proud. Let's hope the next movie, Muppets: Most Wanted, continues this trend.

Score: 4.5/5

6.7/10. There’s an old adage from Roger Ebert, the patron saint of film critics, that goes “'It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.” There’s wisdom in that, with the idea that even movies that express laudable ideas can do so in a hamfisted or haphazard way, and even ones that does the same for less admirable notions can do so a virtuoso or interesting fashion. A Miracle on 34th Street is decidedly the latter, a film that goes to bat for an argument I disagree with, but which does so in a way that makes me nevertheless compelled by the story it tells.

Because Miracle on 34th Street is, sometimes subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly, a film that makes the argument that the American way of life and the people who pursue it have gone astray and are misguided, in their goals and in their culture, through the decreased role religion has played in the public and private lives of its citizens. At times, the film engages with this idea in subtle ways: Kris Kringle expecting to be sworn in using a bible, Mr. Bedford wanting to say a prayer, the romantic finale (itself the product of Kringle’s scheme) taking place in an ornate cathedral. At others, it’s much more direct.

That’s particularly true in the film’s climax, where the judge deciding whether the purported Santa Clause should be committed or not makes a direct comparison between the idea of Santa Clause and the idea of God. It’s then that the film puts its cards on the table – for the purposes of Miracle, Santa is God, not in the sense that he is some divine creator, but that this jovial, benevolent figure who becomes the film’s St. Nikolas, but in the way he is treated skeptically, the way that wounded adults teach their children not to believe him, the way cynical and malevolent forces want to drive him out so that they can do their evil deeds without his interfering do-goodery, that suggest our country and its people are on the wrong track, are empty and incomplete, to the extent religion is treated in the same fashion.

It’s a film that’s peculiarly (lowercase-c) conservative in its views for something that came out of the devil’s den of Hollywood. It subtly posits that a child’s life is out of step if they’re not part of a nuclear family with real house away from the harsh environs of the godless big cities. It suggests that the people who have turned away from faith are either downright evil or are secretly unhappy and lying to themselves about it being for the best. It offers not even the hint of a downside or drawback or measure of complexity to the blind trust it argues for.

As someone who grew up outside the mainstream religion in the United States, that’s a tough pill to swallow. The arguments for and against Santa’s existence in the film are facile and full of easily toppled (if narratively useful) strawmen. There’s a WASP-y orthodoxy, a sense of a desired return to the “good old days” at play that glosses over the problems with that idea. The heart of the film, its point and posited suggestion for what’s best for people and this country as a whole feels antiquated and even myopic, in a way that makes the subtext of so many scenes difficult to contend with.

And yet, taken solely as text, Miracle succeeds in telling an unexpectedly convincing story of a wonderfully endearing old man who brings joy to everything he touches and inspires a city, and a nascent family, to something better.

The film’s greatest boon is its casting of Richard Attenborough as its Kris Kringle. Attenborough just exudes a sense of mirth and quiet dignity, bringing gravitas and joy to a role that needed both in great measure. For a film like this to work, on any terms, it needed to make its Santa one that the audience, not just its characters, could believe in at a visceral level, and Attenborough delivers that nigh-perfectly.

But his success also speaks to how the character is written and how the truth of his identity is presented. The easy thing to do, when attempting to show that someone really could be this jovial elf of myth, would be to show him doing something magical, even ambiguously magical (a trick which the film saves for its ending). Instead, the film sells its Santa by demonstrating the pride he takes in who he is, the omnibenevolent bent with which he approaches everything, the utter commitment and care he has for his cause.

That comes through in the stellar, loving sequence where Kringle puts on his Santa suit – with great care and precision – and gazes around at the department store display before him. The sheer euphoria, the pleasure he takes in his mission to spread joy to the world, is palpable and infectious. And by the same token, the stark pale light he inhabits when committed to a mental institution, sitting lonely at the end of his bed staring out the window, is a powerful image of how devastating it is for him to have that ideal taken away and sullied. In one visual, it communicates his abject shame at thinking he’s marred the symbolism of Santa Claus for children all over the world.

But it’s the interactions with children that truly sell Attenborough’s Santa. That comes through in his conversations with Susan Walker (Mara Wilson), an impossibly precocious child who’s been taught by her mother not to believe in such myths. Wilson is superb, particularly given her age, communicating the emotions a child who is unusually resigned to the ways of the world while still trying to find the excitement in them, who gradually looks at the evidence of this man’s very existence and starts to believe something more is possible. A skeptical child becomes the fulcrum through which this Kris Kringle is established as more than just the average department store Santa, and the pair’s conversations -- the cautious optimism on one side and the tender acceptance on the other -- makes it work.

And yet the most magical moment for Miracle’s Santa comes in a scene that involve nothing supernatural at all. In what doubles as the film’s most heartwarming moment, a mother brings her deaf child to sit on Santa’s lap and tells him that he doesn’t need to speak to her; she just wanted to see him. It’s then that Kringle reveals he knows sign language, a demonstration which clearly delights the little girl on his knee, and starts to convince little Susan that his Santa is more than meets the eye. There is nothing overtly magical about it, but there’s a sense of preternatural goodness, an altruism and devotion to making
these kids happy that marks him as not of this world.

Unfortunately, even setting aside the thematic issues, the film squanders much of this good will focusing on a dull romance between Susan’s mother (Elizabeth Perkins) and their neighbor Mr. Bedford (Dylan McDermott). Their romance takes up a great deal of oxygen in the film, but we’re never really told through exposition, let alone shown in any convincing way, why they like each other. Instead, Mr. Bedford is simply smitten by fiat, and Ms. Walker is less a character than a means to tell a story of Hallmark-level triteness about a woman who believed in love once, was badly burned by it, and now refuses to trust in anyone or anything after until her mind is predictably changed by the new sprite-in-residence. The whole romantic element feels needlessly tacked on to a film at its best when it eschews such perfunctory movie fill-ins.

The same goes for the cadre of overtly evil characters who set out to ruin Santa Claus for pure financial reasons (when they’re not doing it just for the sake of evil itself). There is, at times, an unshowy complexity to Miracle, that delves into why we believe what we do and which makes a surprisingly convincing case for its Kris Kringle.
But when it focuses on these destructive forces – the malevolent rival department store CEO, his duo of goons, the coarse Santa impostor, and the mercenary lawyer who tries to lean on the judge with promises of reelection campaign donations – that message is dumbed down to a cartoonish extent. There’s already reasons for the viewer to have qualms about the arguments the film is quietly (and occasionally not so quietly) making, but the mustache-twirling tones in which any and all opposition are presented also cheapens the message the movie seems to want to send.

Perhaps, however, there is a save. Despite the clear implications behind the manner in which this film tells it story, Miracle can be expressed more broadly as an endorsement of the idea of faith, in all its forms. That certainly includes a belief in God, one endorsed by Mr. Bedford’s saving throw at the trial, but also things like the belief in the possibility of love, in other people, in things we do not necessarily understand but nevertheless experience. Stripped of the subtext behind its message, the film can be said to simply stand for a much more neutral principle of the benefits of taking chances on things we want to believe in, even if we risk hurt and hardship in the process.

And if we twist the film’s themes a bit, if we break them down to a few basic ideas they can become something that resonates apart from a somewhat stunted and oversimplified view it espouses. Kris Kringle is right when he says that he is a symbol, that apart from his existence or nonexistence, there is an idea about mankind’s ability to overcome our lesser angels and be our best selves, for our own good, the good of the people we love, and perhaps even the good of the world, that has merit, especially in a holiday season that touches people in this country regardless of the conception of their beliefs.

Despite my reluctance at the idea that religion should be a greater part of public life, I firmly believe that it can be a force for good, that there are innumerable people prompted by their faith to be better and to do wonderful things for others. And more than that, I believe that there are a number of individuals, each of them mere mortals, who have created incredible changes for the benefit of us all, who have changed the world and dedicated their lives to causes that are tremendously admirable and grand. And these people, whatever their religious persuasion, believed, in the face of the horrible tragedies and crimes across human history, that we are a people worth saving, that human beings, whatever their natures, can come together to achieve amazing things and to be as great as we hope to be.

That is, however much or little religion is involved, a vital form of faith. And there are people – whether they be mythical like Kris Kringle or flesh and blood like the film’s producer and co-writer John Hughes -- who give us symbols and touchstones to help remind us of that. They help to rouse that belief, the trust and the hope that we can care for one another, on holidays and everydays. And that, in its own way, is a miracle.

7.4/10. I have a weird habit of seeing sequels and remakes before I see the originators. It wasn’t by design, but I saw Kingdom of the Crystal Skull before I saw any of the other Indiana Jones films; I watched Live Free or Die Hard before I watched any of the other films in the franchise, and I watched the 1994 Miracle on 34th Street remake before I’d ever seen the original. And when you come into these sorts of things backwards, you can’t help but contrast and compare what you saw first with what you saw next, and see how the two fit together, trump one another, or feel like two movies trying to do the same thing and reaching very different results.

So watching the original 1947 Miracle on 34th Street stands out for the ways it differs from its successor: in the theme of the film, in the logic and character of its story, and in the different takes on the same characters.

As to theme, it’s interesting that the 1994 version is, in many ways, more old-fashioned than the 1947 version. While the nineties Miracle uses belief in Santa as a proxy for religious belief and subtly champions the superiority, if not the necessity, of the nuclear family, the forties version is not really focused on either. Instead, it’s centered on what’s become more of a traditional theme for Holidays films and TV shows – the creep of commercialism over the goodwill spirit of the season. Sure, there’s some of the same subtext when it comes to belief, or in the dream of the house in the suburbs over the fancy Manhattan apartment, but the 1947 film is more attached to the idea that Christmas is something about more than selling toys, than about the importance of faith in and of itself.

What’s also interesting is how much more sense the 1947 version makes, particularly in its courtroom scenes, than the 1994 version does. To some degree, any sort of trial to determine whether or not someone is Santa Claus is going to trend toward the silly or outlandish, but the forties Miracle does a surprisingly superb job at rooting it in as much realism as there could be for such a thing. Fred Gailey makes a plausible, if not exactly probable case for why a commitment hearing could devolve into a referendum on whether or not a man is really Santa Claus, and the opposing district attorney does a nice job at holding his feet to the flame on issues like who has the burden and relevance that make it feel more like a real court proceeding than a convenient Hollywood abstraction.

That leads to another notable difference between the two films: the lack of overtly evil antagonists in the 1947 version relative to its 1994 counterpart. The 1994 film is full of mustache-twirling baddies, from the opposing department store CEO, to his two goons, to the deposed former Macy’s Santa, to the venal district attorney. The 1947 has none of that, with the closest thing to a real antagonist being puffed up pseudo-psychologist Granville Sawyer, who’s more of an easily dispatched pest than a real threat. (And even then, the film takes care to note that psychology as a whole isn’t bad – lest it become a proto-Scientology favorite – just that this guy is a poor practitioner). The evil in this movie comes from a cultural shift to consumption, competition, and tribalism over goodwill, generosity, and kindness rather than from some particular bad individual.

It ties into the characterizations of the district attorney and the judge in the 1947 version. While the district attorney in the 1994 Miracle is portrayed as a generally dishonest guy, the one in the forties film admits that he likes the purported Kris Kringle, and doesn’t want to see him committed necessarily, but that he’s just doing his job. Similarly, the 1940s film creates an interesting dynamic where the judge’s campaign manager tells him to let Santa off the hook for the good publicity, while the judge himself is similarly pleasantly disposed toward the kindly old man who thinks himself Old Saint Nick, but is likewise committed to doing his job and following the law impartially, even if it hurts his election chances. There’s an integrity to both of them that’s missing in the conceptions of both characters in the 90s film.

That said, the comparisons of the main characters results in differences, but not necessarily superior outings from one versus the other. There’s a pure jolly gregariousness and decency in Richard Attenborough’s Santa in the 90s remake that makes him the standout element in that film. The 1940s Santa (Edmund Gwenn) is a little less chuckly, a little more upstanding and dignified, while still representing a purity of heart to make the character work. Similarly, Mara Wilson’s Susan Walker is a bit more precocious, feeling like an old soul at an early age, while the turn as the same character by a young Natalie Wood works in a different way, with a sort of wry skepticism that’s amusing coming from an elementary school-aged child.

The same goes for the pair of Doris Walker and Fred Gailey. In the nineties version, the couple is a little more expressive, but they’re also more generic, with a certain Hallmark movie romance and standard dynamic that doesn’t allow them to rise above the material. By contrast, the pair in the 1940s film come off as a little more button down, which speaks to the different times of the two films, but also a little more understandable. Here, Doris seems less like a broken woman trying to remain cold and distant than a perfectly reasonable one, who means well and wants the best for her daughter and this man who claims to be Kris Kringle, but also wants to do her job and take the precautions necessary.

In the end, of course, both she and her daughter believe him. (As an aside, I’d kill for some gear for my favorite sports teams that say “I believe. I believe. It’s silly, but I believe.”) The memorable scene of bags of letters to Santa brought into the courtroom lives up to its iconic status by offering a clever way for Gailey to show that the federal government has recognized his client as Santa. And, sure enough, in the end the good guys win after getting their day in court.

But more than that, the letter of support from the two individuals in Kringle’s test case offers the true victory and sells the theme of the film -- that more than a general faith or even a belief in one man’s identity, these two skeptical individuals believe in spirit of kindness and generosity that he represents, and which the season symbolizes for so many people. That alone elevates the 1940s original over the remake, and watching the two films in reverse order shows how in many ways, the folks behind the 1947 Miracle were sharper and in some ways, more ahead of the times than their 1994 counterparts.

jock lead, check
hot girl with all-time perfect makeup and visible rack cleavage for male gaze, check
nerd guy with glasses, and curly hair, check
nerd girl also with glasses, shorter hair, childish clothes, trying to show "female power" but failing anyway, check

the movie is riddled with clichés and tropes. every scene, moment a child can predict. cliché!!.

it has released much early in my country by the way. and I don’t think anyone cares for a SPOILER in this movie/franchise??. but you’ve been warned none the less

u almost think. oh wow, I did not expect that to happen. good work. NOPE SURPRISE!!! that’s exactly cliché thing which was supposed to happen.

some dumb person smiling and being happy that he escaped a dino. nope he will be EATEN!!!!.

every henchman in the bad guy's team was an animal cruelty symbol. u know so that we would try to root for the poorly written "so called" good guys I guess....

the dialogues are also cliché. "holy shit" "you have to see this”. we have all heard this before.

it was like this movie was written with a book of cliché’s nearby. I don’t get it, this is a sequel right? so why can’t they do something new. carry things on. why do they have to have the very same moments throughout all the series. it’s almost like they are welcoming "new audiences" to the franchise. and so there u go: here is 1 unrelated guy eaten by a huge dino. here is a scene where someone barely escapes. here is a classic "safe" dinosaur with relaxing bg music for all chars to see. typical Jurassic movie tropes here.
and to fill things up they also had some horror tropes for no reason. even some non dino ones!!. like a little girl scares her nanny. and we as audiences have to witness few seconds of a scene where it felt like we are watching a murder movie.
the characters are horribly written.

why are we supposed to root for Owen (Chris Pratt) again? he seems like a jerk. who doesn’t care for anything at all ever but himself. Claire breaks up with him every time for some reason... (but its ok because they will get back together of course, because... movie). he had abandoned his care for dinosaurs. and we never know why. pretty ex gf just guilt trips him over one beer and he is ready to join the adventure. WHY??? WHAT CHANGED HIS HEART? WHY HE BECAME ASSHOLE IN THE FIRST PLACE??

and oh btw. it happens in the cliché scene again.
where they wait for him at the plane runaway. and oh nooooo he is not gonna come :(.
SURPRISE. he is already there!!!.

Bryce Dallas was told to look pretty and act pretty. that’s pretty much it. and she is all "dinosaurs must be free" now.... because...... I don’t know... movie... again. what happened? what changed her mind??. is it because franchise kicked off and we must root for these people now.

why break them up????? why do we get to see their intro all over again. because hey the next time they fall asleep. girl's hand will be all inside Chris Pratt’s shirt. (IT HAPPENS!!!)

is this even a sequel? it feels like a reboot of a reboot. this person was trying to commercialize dinosaurs and was pretty much a huge jerk aunt to those kids (who were so annoying and thus I’m glad they are not here btw)

the "villain" is this guy, who knows Claire from before and he explains to her why they must save the dinosaurs into this new place (oh please, we know you’ll be the bad guy, we have read book of cliché’s too movie)

he ultimately brings the dinosaurs for an auction back to the city.... without anyone realizing anything.... man these guys could run the country if they're so powerful and covert

there are 2 stereotypical nerds. with franklin written so bad that I wanted him dead asap. overacting AF. seriously. if u tell me u like him you are just a casual moviegoer or a troll. I can’t describe him more without the need of punching something.
there is a scene exchange between him and the leader of the capture team. where just within 2 seconds he is taunted "Can u open this door tiger" something like that. and the door like practically immediately opens. and this nerd is like. "there u go, tiger". yeah nice comeback

minutes later they are locked in and this guy acts like he knows nothing now. he keeps being a weirdo and and changes his motivation within seconds of a scene just for weird humor.

horribly inconsistent characters.

during the first encounter with Owen’s friend dino raptor blue. (who also was not a reason enough to come join this mission for Owen, "let them die" he said)

the capture team people go bad. (because cliché) and they shoot blue and Owen. fine.... but now the nerd girl who was 2 minutes ago showing off to this team as a badass girl because "girl power" I guess? is now taking a gun and pointing at the.... ok ... for what.. will u really shoot them? they did not really kill Owen or the dino. how badass are you u want to show??

and they all ready to shoot her too. but due to some illogical argument which I really don’t want to get into. this "Mexican standoff" stops but the guys shrug her off.

there is this little girl's character who is shown to be a complete Mary sue at first. she can go anywhere to listen in on conversations way too smart for her age. she is not afraid. she is a daredevil , not afraid of heights at all. u know what. I’m all cool for powerful child characters if the movie is ABOUT THEM!!. this was really awkward. the worst part like I said how character arcs go haywire. as soon as she encounters her first dinosaur. she is screaming at the top of her voice. and then continuing to do that till the movie ends.

hey u know what, don’t show me a dinosaur loving young girl afraid of nothing at all at first and then since she is a girl, she has to scream unbearably loudly every time something is happening and then keep hugging chris pratt for no reason. instead of probably claire which would make more sense. stick to your character traits maybe...

cliché moments and cliché characters. yes, I am using the word cliché a lot. but that’s what I was rubbed with in my face in few hours ago.

there is an auction going on where they present the dinosaur in the huge case which I am sure pretty much hides all the bidder to the auctioneer. but movie!!!

lot of moments of story did not make sense. and I don’t want to spend more time for them.

the cinematic moments like the dinosaur roars and everything were same old same old. so, it’s a dino fatigue at this point. nothing new and fresh for it. I was seeing in this Imax and wanted to be blown away and scared probably. but it did not happen. it’s really like they are catering to a fresh new audience rather than people who see and remember movies, like the first parts!!!!

The set pieces although feel fantastic at first end up being anti-climactic. The whole third act takes place in that huge manor where the auction takes place. After which there are teases for the sequel. Why does every movie want to be a franchise so badly? First be good and people will throw themselves over your movies and wait day by day for sequel. Me included. But this shove in your face teases after your average movie makes me want to punch someone!! “The dinosaurs are free in this world now. So get ready for awesomeness you wanted in this movie, in the next part!!!” Yeahhh!! F***!!!!!!!

Jeff Goldblum was shown in trailers. and thats exactly how long he will stay in the movie, couple of minutes. why show him in your trailer and ruin a cool surprise which could have saved this movie otherwise marred by cliche's and average writing.?? and if you show him like that. maybe use him much more in the plot......

I really enjoy movies and am more than happy to suspend my disbelief as much as possible. but it was not possible here. so, I’m not thrashing on this movie for no reason. it really was bad.

that being said. few positives here are:
the special effects are spot on. couldn’t really complain here. it’s sad how much potential can be wasted.
also, I have nothing really against the actors. I am sure most of them were doing their best and are talented. the writing and the direction lead to this mess.

the sound and music were decent.

if you are a casual audience this movie is perfect. you will NOT be disappointed. but if you are an avid moviegoer. tired of tropes and repetitions and also somewhat of critic. get ready for a lawsuit because you would have punched someone sitting on your side or front.

definitely won’t be watching this again even if I have time and money to kill. not even years later on streaming I think

enjoy!

The Good:

• Disney's animated classic this holds up visually and story-wise today. It is one of the studio's most original, lovable and emotional stories and accessible for viewers of all ages.
• The animation is slick and beautiful and the animals have distinct characteristics that make each and every lion stand out as a separate entity.
• Features arguably the best set of musical numbers in any Disney film to date. The music is pure gold and many of the classic songs are just a s wonderful today as 25 years ago. Tim Rice and Elton John could not have done a better job with the music.
• The stampede scene is still touching and heart-breaking. The introduction of Timon and Pumbaa is still funny. And the final confrontation is still exciting.
• The voice acting is flawless on all parts and a particular nod has to be given to James Earl Jones for voicing Mufasa.
• The story has a deeper meaning to it and does a good job at teaching this meaning to its audience.
• There is a nice flow to everything and the 90 minutes fly by fast. Despite this, the movie manages to hold quite a lot of content and tell a coherent story from start to finish.

The Bad:

• It has a cliched story ripped off from Shakespeare.

The Verdict:

The Lion King is not only one of Disney's best films, it's also one of the greatest animated features ever made. It's heart-breaking, warm, funny and exciting all at the same time.

[8.0/10] For a very long time, the endless Trekkie debate of Kirk vs. Picard was a no-brainer for me. Captain Picard was my captain -- the dignified, humane, paragon of leadership who elevated the role and the franchise with his very presence. And Captain Kirk was the womanizing, slobber-knocking, bundle of ham from an outdated predecessor who had become the girdle-squeezed butt of the joke by the time I was coming of age.

But Star Trek Generations capstones an enjoyable, year-long exercise for me, one where I watched every episode of The Original Series and The Animated Series, all of the Star Trek movies featuring the original cast, and even a handful of sundry episodes of The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Voyager where crewmembers from the first ship to bear the name “Enterprise” appear. (Not to mention one well-meaning, star-studded fan film.) And in that time, I’ve come to appreciate the man known as James T. Kirk.

He was a captain for a different time, both in-universe in the 23rd Century when Starfleet was still taming the frontier of space, but also in the real world 1960s, where Star Trek’s multicultural ideas and progressive leanings often understandably gave way to the politics and perspectives of the era.

And yet there’s a remarkable continuity of character between the Kirk who strode the bulkheads in 1967 and the one who made his (for now at least) last canon appearance in 1994. When I watched Generations in the 90s, Kirk was an abstraction to me, the hazy, outmoded counterpoint to Picard, saddled with years of jokes about Shatner’s acting style and the chintziness of those early outings. And yet here, with nearly three decades’ worth of adventures from Kirk and performances from Shatner, this collision of worlds, this meeting between two captains, is more momentous, and meaningful, than the young, dismissive Trekkie who first watched this film could understand.

Generations then, makes the bold but unusual move of having the movie both begin and end with Kirk’s death. It opens on the deck of the Enterprise-B, some years after Kirk and his cohort have retired, with the Captain, Scotty, and Chekov brought on as mascots to christen their replacements. It’s clear that Kirk feels uncomfortable in his new figurehead role, itching to give orders and jump into the fray, even when he’s more legend than man sitting on someone else’s ship.

So naturally, something goes terribly wrong; one of those mysterious, dangerous translucent clouds that always seems to pop up in Trek stories is threatening people’s lives, and when the new captain can’t handle it, Kirk and his compatriots spring into action, with the daring, conviction, and willingness to take risks that became their calling cards. In trademark style, Kirk manages to save the day, but this time the incident seems to take his life.

And then we jump seventy-eight years into the future (well, further into the future). That’s one of the most impressive things about Generations. It is both the first Next Generation movie, but also a transition away from the original cast movies, and it manages to thread that needle surprisingly well. It begins with that epic tribute to the derring do of The Original Series and ends with Kirk dying (for real this time) after saving the day one final time, but manages to fit those events as natural elements of the broader story being told about the crew (and most notably the captain), of the Enterprise-D.

It’s a story of those captains from very different eras, not just the world of Star Trek, feeling like time may have passed them by. A surprising number of Star Trek films have been about feeling your age and worrying that time may be running out. But it feels particularly relevant here. The original cast had completed their last film, and would hereafter be reduced to cameos and legends. And the Next Generation team had wrapped up its seventh and final season, and were hoping to make the jump to films, but it was precarious shift. For all anyone knew, this would be the last major cinematic adventure for either branch of the Star Trek tree.

So Generations has a reflective quality. Before the life-saving hullabaloo at the top of the film, Kirk notices that the Enterprise-B is being helmed by Sulu’s daughter, and remarks on Sulu finding the time to raise a family. After a fun nautical sequence to introduce the TNG cast, Picard receives cause to reflect on his own family, as he learns that the brother, sister-in-law, and nephew we met in post-Borg episode “Family” have perished in a fire.

And even that reflection is cause to contrast and compare the two captains. While not facing the same situation, Kirk expresses his wistfulness in wry comments to his buddies, with that bit of Shatner whimsy and sarcasm that reveals the character’s worries but maintains the too-cool-for-school facade. Picard, meanwhile, has to be coaxed to grieve by Counselor Troi, and there Patrick Stewart gives the performance of the film, weeping over the life his nephew will never have the chance to lead, feeling the responsibility of his family name possibly ending with him.

It’s the two shows, two captains, and two sensibilities, in miniature. There’s the sly devil pausing for a moment and feeling uneasy in his role but diving in quickly to save the day, and there’s the polished statesman, attempting to maintain his dignified veneer, only to let the raw emotion pour out of him when the time is right.

That’s something Data experiences here too. Aside from the Captains, Data’s serviced the most by Generations’s script. It features him having Geordi install his emotions chip, in an effort to continue to expand his attempt to become more human. That often provides the comic relief for the film, which tends to go pretty broad and even create a fair amount of tonal whiplash for the film. It’s fun to see Data cheerfully declare his hatred of a drink, or cheer on the Enterprise defeating an enemy, or come up with a song about scanning for life forms, but it doesn’t always fit into the atmosphere of a particular moment, and some of it’s pretty cheesy.

But the character choice gains strength when the film plays it for drama rather than for laughs. While the humor of experiencing every human emotion of the course of a day or so has comic potential, the episode also finds the power in experiencing mortal fear for the first time, guilt over your failure to overcome it, and the sense of being overwhelmed by a cacophony of feelings you cannot ignore. But when Data is forced to bounce these concerns off his captain and confidante, and experiences genuine joy and relief for the first time, the payoff is tremendous. It’s an uneven arc, one that misses as much as it hits, but it centers on the search for the heart of humanity at the core of Star Trek and delivers when it needs to.

The same cannot really be said for the film’s major plot. For all of Generations’s lofty themes, it is required by movie law to have a villain, a major threat, and some wacky science fiction excuse to pair up the two guys on the poster. None of them is bad exactly, but none of them really soars or syncs up naturally with the depth of the theme.

That sci-fi wackiness is The Nexus, some supernatural plane or alternate dimension or other such treknobabble-filled wonderland where you experience nothing but happiness. It turns out that Kirk didn’t die, and was instead swept up into The Nexus’s otherworldly embrace, and what do you know, Picard gets swept up in it too.

As means of explaining why Kirk could be alive and kicking (or at least nudging) nearly a century after his heydey, The Nexus is fine. Frankly, any excuse was going to be a bit cheesy, but Star Trek is no stranger to mysterious cosmic phenomenon or time-altering shenanigans.

But the execution is off. For one thing, the villain’s motivation hinges on his desire to get back to The Nexus at any cost, given how utterly blissful it is, and Guinan emphasizes her desire to forget she was ever there because otherwise its pull would be too strong, and warns Picard that he won’t care about anything else but his personal joy within it. But when, inevitably, Picard arrives there, he has a brief (if potent), helping of the familial joy he had previously regretted missing out on, but then pretty quickly resolves that he must go back to save the day.

And though the episode spends a little longer on Kirk’s version of Heaven and the paths not taken (which make for a good detour to further establish his own motivation and character details after the opening sequence), he too pretty easily decides that it isn’t real and so he’s ready to go back to the real world and fight the good fight. Maybe you can chalk it up to Picard and Kirk being such Great Men™ that they can withstand temptations that make other men crumble, but it feels more like a cheap way to put them together and get them where they need to be with minimal fuss.

Similarly, the attack by and collaboration from The Klingons feels less like an organic part of the film, and more like something that gives the non-Picard members of the TNG something to do while Picard is off in la la land, and to supply the legally required amount of explosions, stunt work, and outer orbit action. It’s all fine on that front, if a bit saggy, with the Enterprise’s planetary crash proving a particularly tense sequence, but for the most part it comes off like tossed-in fireworks for fireworks sake.

Then there’s Dr. Soren, the aforementioned villain who often seems similarly extraneous. Malcolm McDowell gives the mostly perfunctory bad guy his level best, and at times feels like a modern day equivalent to Khan in Star Trek 2, spouting shopworn first year philosophy clichés but doing so with gusto.

The problem is that Soren works better as a symbol than he does a character. He is the personification of Kirk and Picard’s fears, of what they might turn into if they hold onto their regrets of the past. He is desperate to avoid the emotional pain from the loss of his family, to avoid the inevitability of death, to declare that nothing matters because time will always catch up with you. In many ways he’s a strawman, or a caricature, of the contrary position to the parable Kirk and Picard are supposed to be receiving. But he at least has flavor, mainly from McDowell’s performance, even if he’s more of a vessel for ideas than a fully-formed person.

But as clunky as the devices for uniting the two captains are, and as superfluous an obstacle as Soren feels at times, the thematic foundation of the film is sound and, at times, affecting. Kirk laments his stepping away from the Captain’s chair because that chair gave him the ability to make a difference. Picard, realizes that the differences he makes in his life, differences he could make by virtue of sitting in that chair, matter more than what he leaves behind.

As much as the two captains are different, as much as their very presence in the same scene feels like a bit of a clash of energy in the way that Picard’s face-to-face encounters with Scotty and Spock never did, Generations’s greatest achievement is finding the common ground between them. Here are two men of different eras, of different perspectives, who are nonetheless united in their desire to save the galaxy, who feels the same pull of the families they’ll never have, but are buoyed by the thrill of adventure and the duty and honor of fighting the good fight every chance they get.

Both shine in the admittedly contrived moment when they resolve to go back, because the odds are against them, like they always are, because there’s some madman with a superweapon, like there always is, and because they’re the only guys in the universe who can manage to stop him, like they always do. There’s the hint of a fourth wall wink to that, but also the sense of admiration, of the years of enjoyment and endearing adventure both men and their compatriots have delivered in this vein over the years.

And so they do it once more. Wouldn’t you know it, while Picard alone is no match for Soren, the two captains together are more than the maniacal doctor can handle. (And it’s a nice touch that the more staid Picard’s fisticuffs don’t quite do the trick on Soren, but the rough and tumble Kirk, far more adept at situational pugilism, gets to triumph in one last throwdown.) There’s symbolism there too, in the melding of these two separate schools of Star Trek -- the swashbuckling James T. Kirk and the problem-solving Jean Luc Picard, as necessary to win the day, neither able to succeed without the other. In the end, Soren is defeated, the Enterprise-destroying supernova is undone, and the galaxy is safe once more.

But there’s a cost to it, and after making a daring leap to grab the macguffin to stop the doomsday device, Kirk plummets to his doom, with just enough life left in him to offer some dying words.

And they’re damn good words too. It’s no small thing to have to come up with the last words Captain Kirk will ever say, nor to deliver them, but writer and performer deliver on both fronts. It’s a moment that Shatner lives up to, very much living up to the devil-may-care attitude and wry sense of humor he always brought to the captain’s chair. His “oh my” in the face of death borders on cheese, but feels true to the actor, and the character, in their final moments together.

And so does his epitaph on nearly thirty years of adventure -- “it was fun.” The Original Series will never be my Star Trek in the same way The Next Generation was. I’ll never be able to trade the greater focus on diplomacy, the stronger philosophical bent, and the gravitas of Patrick Stewart, for the capture-followed-by-pugilism formula, the shoestring charm, and the over-the-top glory of William Shatner.

But by god, The Original Series, and all that branched out from it, was fun, and occasionally even as profound as its more serious-minded successors. Generations takes the heavy emotional baggage and burden of command of Picard, matches it with the sly winks and quick fists of Kirk, and positions them as equals, both worthy of admiration and affection, even if they don’t necessarily seem like a natural fit.

And that’s the same conclusion I’ve reached after a year of balancing my own childhood memories and affections for The Next Generation with the new-to-me adventures of their forbears. There would be more adventures to come for the crew of the Enterprise-D (soon to be Enterprise-E), but this was the last stand for Kirk as we knew him. He wasn’t my captain, an honor that could only be bestowed on the man I watched with the eyes of youth, but James Tiberius Kirk, and the men and women who stood alongside him, were still worthy of the place they carved out in so many hearts and minds, and so too found their place, however smaller than their larger than life presence, in mine.

Although it was a little slow to begin with, I was not disappointed at all by this film. As soon as I heard there was a new one, I kept an open mind and told myself that: "If it makes me laugh as much as the first and second, then I will be happy", and thankfully, it certainly did! If I was going to pick between the three, I'd still slightly prefer the second one, but I don't really think we should be comparing them. Why not enjoy them all? I certainly have.

As with all of Rowan Atkinson's comic creations, Johnny English is a hilarious character who can simply be funny in an empty room. So many people discuss his physical ability, which is of course outstanding, but even his ability to phrase words for comical effect can brighten anybody's day. There are so many subtle gags in this film, it's unbelievable.

I loved the return of Bough as his sidekick. He plays an excellent part in both the first one and this new one. His character is equally as brilliant as Johnny English himself.

A wonderful film, filled with brilliant comedy, and there were moments when I didn't think I'd be able to stop laughing. It was fantastic!

Synopsis: In first century Rome, evil Emperor Nero rules with an iron fist. Those who follow Christ live in hiding and fear for their lives; Nero has been casting those of the Way to the lions because of their faith. Paul, world-traveling missionary, is imprisoned and nearing the end of his life. Luke, a doctor and fellow believer, visits him in prison. When military commander Mauritius' daughter is sick, he is desperate to save her...but, nobody seems to be able to help. He has heard that Luke is an amazing physician...but, he can't bear the thought of having one of those Christians set foot in his home. Will he be able to save his daughter...and learn the error of his ways?

The Good: For a Christian movie, the production values here are incredible. It really took me back to the time of Acts, which, ironically, was where I was in my Bible reading plan when I started and finished this. The actors all did amazingly well, and this flick doesn't shy away from showing the brutality that those of the Way faced back in the day. There is some blood, but much of the more intense violence is implied...which can leave quite the picture in your mind's eye. Showing Paul's past haunting him was a plus; I'm a Christian now, but, I had a rather troubled childhood as well, despite being raised in a faithful home. So, when his deeds in his younger years haunted him, that just makes me identify with him all the more. All in all, this was excellent, except...

The Bad: I had a hard time getting into this at first; the jumping around made me feel like I was watching a clips show instead of an actual movie. Plus, though Jim Caviezel did well as Luke, hearing his voice made me think I was hearing Jesus instead, as he does the voice of Christ in The Word of Promise audio Bible.

Conclusion: Other than Jesus, who is your favorite person in the Bible? I've heard answers ranging from Peter to Abraham to even Samson. (I don't understand the reason for the latter answer; he may have been really strong...but he was also a rather messed-up guy, and undone by a woman.) For me, that answer is Paul, because he is a lot like me: a checkered past, a passion for expressing ideas through words, and a head for Scripture. This film illustrates his life very well; though I've seen other cinematic interpretations of his life, this one ranks above the rest. Just make sure that you stick to it when you decide to watch this; it may be a bit hard to get through at first, but it's worth it.

Score: 4/5

“There is not always a good guy. Nor is there always a bad one. Most people are somewhere in between.”

Before seeing the movie, I didn't know much about "A Monster Calls". The only information I got from it is that it's based on Patrick Ness novel and the trailer had a "Iron Giant" vibe to it. I also liked the director (Juan Antonio Bayona) previous movies, so I guess that's what peaked my interest in seeing it. And I came out pretty surprised of how good it was. Not just that, but how moving and heartfelt it was.

Juan Antonio Bayona is the type of director that knows how to tell a compelling story in his films. To screw lose the sentiment, until your eyes are filled with water to the point where you can't help but spill out. And in this movie he dose exactly that and how smart he was with it's decisions of the emotional scenes.

There's a lot of great actors in this and none of them are put to waste. Liam Nesson was excellent as The Monster. Sigourney Weaver was great as the Grandma. Felicity Jones and Toby Kebbell were also great as Connor parents. But I think the real stand is Lewis MacDougall as (Connor). Even at the age of 14 this kid literally carries this movie and really dose reflect Connor's inner conflict.

That's what I notice in Bayona movies. All of the kid actors in his movies are pretty solid and I would go as far to say that they better than the adults. This is very rare for me to say that, because most kid actors suck. Yes there are good ones out there, but only some, as most of them don't fully bring their all.

The visual effect's were pretty stunning and impressive of how it interacted with the real environment that it was in. In all honesty, I was pretty surprised. And what I mean by "surprise" is that I was expecting The Monster itself to be the only effect in the movie. Because The Monster tells three stories to Conner and all three are done in a visual dye artwork that's beautiful to look at. It's good to be surprise.

For problems I had with the movie are slim, but if I had to pick, I would probably say that films message can be a little repetitive and oblivious towards the end. I think that may bug some people. But still, it's a great message that's speaks the truth and actually sticks to it. I mean, if the message was terrible or nothing special, then this might be a big complaint. The film doesn't have an happy ending and neither a sad one. There's no Hollywood ending or anything like that. It would say it's mixed.

Overall rating: "A Monster Calls" is entertaining, sad, and unforgettable tale that sticks with you after it's over. The film tells the truth and nothing but the truth of life. You want everything to be alright for this kid, but you're left with a feeling of stillness. Like you can't do anything about it, even with all the magical things that's happening. It just gotta let it happen....

that's life.

i don't know what to say, other than i love this goddamn movie. i can truly say that my experience was enhanced by the fact that i'm not straight, as i definitely feel like this was a movie made for people who are struggling/have struggled with coming out. that's not to say it can't be enjoyed by a wide demographic of people (as it obviously can and has been), but i definitely feel like they got the "gay high school experience" down to a t in a way that it makes it all the more enjoyable if you've been through it. all of simon's mannerisms are incredibly relatable, and the dialogue is especially touching and well written (i cried buckets). their tagline, "everyone deserves a great love story" pretty much sums up my feelings, and not to be dramatic (too late), but it's a rom-com that i can really connect with on a deeper level and for that i'm grateful.

in addition to literally everybody, i encourage any lgbt+ people to see this if you're struggling with your identity or the fear of what others will think, or even the fear that you'll never find anybody to love or that loves you. this is truly a movie that you watch and think, "this guy gets it".

We all have unique reasons for loving a film. That's what makes cinema so magical. It's personal. You can love the meat of the movie, or you can love the trimmings.

There's a bunch of good stuff here. Most people my age will refer to "Superman" as THE definitive superhero film. None will ever take it's place. A position no doubt dictated by the age we were when first viewing it. As with films like "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark", WHEN you experience them is just as important as HOW you experience them.

As we age, youth's eyes fade. Cynicism creeps in. Experience leads us to see the many injustices this life offers and we become more critical... less likely to accept that which we would rather believe. After all, an adult who clings to the youthful ideals of wonder is simply naive... right?

To this day, the opening title sequence for "Superman" fills me with the same magical joy it did over twenty years ago. Never was a score so perfectly crafted around a film. John Williams and Richard Donner created such an indelible experience that over 25 yrs later, Bryan Synger will use the same music and theme to bring the magic to a new generation of wondrous eyes.

As for me though, this will always remain the best.

I honestly don't understand all the hype and high scores and positive reviews on this movie.

To start off, the 20yo "high school students" are nowhere near believable, but at the same time they're such stereotypes-on-legs that one feels the urge to just punch them in the face. Not only their personalities, but their every single interaction as well is so sterotypical and predictable that they're literally painful to watch.

Once they get into the game, it doesn't get any better. The fact that they're sucked into a game only serves to negate any and all sense of danger they may face during the "adventure": with three lives, you just know that whatever happens to them will have no consequence whatsoever - if anything, they manage to utilise "death" as a game mechanic to help them along the way; heck even their weaknesses become strengths, if not just butts of jokes. Their transformation only goes the most predictable way too: turning into their own "inverse" versions, with one or two character traits preserved to make everything else about them a joke. The world itself is poorly utilised as well: the source of the main dangers isn't nature but bandits on motorcycles, with some bad CGI animals only occasionally getting in their way. Even the story is non-existent, with a huge timeskip after a short intro, because gods forbid they actually continue where it was left off, or just bring it to present days right from the start.

The actors at least try to make an effort to do something with their characters, but quite frankly the ensemble of a muscle-brained G.I. Joe, a middle-aged unkempt Indiana Jones, a black valet, and Lara Croft has too little originality to it (ie. none) for those efforts to make much of a difference. Not to even mention the pilot, who couldn't be more generic if he was actually cut out of cardboard. But hey, at least Jack Black gets to play a teenage girl.

I'm not sure who felt that making this movie was needed. I'm not sure who thinks walking clichés and d××k jokes constitute a "fun family movie". Take away the title, and there is quite literally nothing to see here that stands out from any similar "lower tier" flick - none of which ever gets this ridiculously overrated.

What was really disappointing was that this didn't really follow in the footsteps of the original Jumanji movie. There was no need to title it "Jumanji," they just set me up for disappointment.

The original film had such a great format, they roll the dice and some new danger rolls in, and they have to survive whilst still trying to carry on with the game, adding new dangers every time they roll. It's what made Jumanji, Jumanji. The new film didn't follow that at all.

The characters were all sucked into this Jumanji video game with 3 lives, so there was no real danger. It's their in-game "avatar" that dies and immediately comes back, rather than any consequence, so the exciting danger that the first movie had wasn't there.

To add to that, the effects and scenarios that the characters are put in just aren't as good either. The first Jumanji had monsoons, swarms of dangerous animals, stampedes, all coming out of this board game into the real world. In the new film, the Jungle may as well not be there, the main threat is a gang of people on motor cycles. A few different poorly CGI'd animals make brief appearances.

It wasn't very funny either. The trailer probably shows you the funniest parts, and even that wasn't particularly funny. It wasn't an awful film, it just wasn't good.

I got to say I was really impressed with that movie and was filled with admiration towards Stephen Hawking and it has nothing to do with him being a brilliant physicist. But for being a strong willed human being. A Man who by all means was dealt a bad hand but he never took it as an excuse to not do what he believed in.
I was amazed by Redmayne's performance and how his eyes never stopped shinning even when he lost control over all his motor skills he looked more alive than most of us.
Never for once stopped living life to the fullest.
Another thing that really got to me was the relationship between him and his wife. The intimacy, the communication even when it was about being with someone else, they never stopped talking to one another. An example that we should all follow in our relationships.

Watching that movie made my realise who petty my problems are and how no matter how bad they are, the most important thing about them is that they are temporary.. Some people are not so lucky!

It received four Golden Globe Award nominations, winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama for Redmayne and Best Original Score.
It received three 21st Screen Actors Guild Awards nominations, winning one for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role for Redmayne.
It received 10 nominations in British Academy Film Awards or BAFTA and went on to win three; Outstanding British Film, Best Leading Actor (for Redmayne) and Best Adapted Screenplay (for Anthony McCarten).
The film also received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, with Redmayne winning Best Actor for his performance.

Before I started watching this movie, I had high expectations. Reviews and friends told me to expect a real science fiction movie. I've been longing for a real sci-fi flick since "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Contact" and "Sunshine". I know people nowadays are calling fiction and fantasy movies sci-fi, but I rather tend to draw a dinstinctive line and emphasize on the word "science".
That being said, the plot is simple, but at the same time realistic. The movie tells the story of humans trying to survive in an utterly inhabitable place - space. It's a movie that will remind kids (and adults alike), spoiled by the strange education they receive through contemporary media, that not everything can be achieved by wishful thinking. Humans are not made for living in space. Every step off earth is a step defying nature. Is that bad or good? That's a decision everyone has to make for himself.

The visuals are stunning. I watched it in 2D and I plan on watching it again in 3D. The spectator has the feeling to actually be there.
At least as important though is the sound. Many filmmakers make the mistake of having sound in space. Of course that's totally ridiculous. The only sound there is, is the sound that's created inside of your space-suit or space-station by the shockwaves that hit it. Throughout the movie I had the feeling they got it right. And actually it didn't make the movie "empty", but quite the opposite, more tense. It intensified the feeling of "this is not a place where I belong".

There was one scene though, I thought wasn't right. When Bullock holds on to Clooney, Clooney should already have the same trajectory as Bullock or the station or he should bounce back. I just don't get what's still pulling him. I think it is a mistake in the movie and a serious one at that.

Anyway, I can overlook that, since the rest of the movie is very good. On IMDB it has a rating of 8.2 right now. I'd give it more like a 7.8. Maybe even less. I guess the rating is a bit high, because for young viewers it is a new experience to see something realistic on the screen.

Should you watch it? Yes, definitely. Should you rewatch it? Maybe, for the CGI and if you haven't seen it in 3D. Certainly not for the story.

In 2008, i saw "Cloverfield" for the first time, i had no idea about what the movie was and a i didn't know i would love it, the simple script and the found footage style made as an imersive and amazing experience, i really enjoyed.
8 years later and the same producers come back with a semi-sequel, i guess that's how i can call this film, in january i didn't even know this movie was coming out, i tought it was weird cause they were using Cloverfield in the name, so i saw a small teaser and i was surprised that this film was totally different from the previous one. The filming style, the atmosphere, everything from the predecessor was gone.
New filming style (which by the way is a beautiful cinematography), new atmosphere, new characters, new story. Dan Trachtenberg's first feature film is just amazing, very competitive and stylish direction, everything works on this film, the simple script works along with the cast of three. Mary Elizabeth Winstead outstanding as usual, John Goodman on one of the best works of his career and John Gallagher Jr. i never saw acting but he surprised me.
The atmosphere created in the film is just great, caught my attention in every second, the shadowed cinematography and a very imersive soundtrack by Bear McCreary makes it almost perfect.
The third act rushes a little bit, and the ending may have some mixed receptions, i liked it. (Obs: don't watch the trailers, it may have too many information and ruin your experience).
10 Cloverfield Lane is one of the best psychological thriller movies of the decade, terrific and almost perfect. Go see it.

Ridley Scot is back! After some less interesting movies he succeed to make an great one again! It isn't the greatest movie I have ever seen but I couldn't recall one fault or issues with this film. The acting was great especially with his carry Matt Damon! The rest of the cast did fairly good. Matt Damons character stranded on Mars and wants to find a way to survive until he is rescued. This is the main part of the film which was surprisingly funny. Mainly due to the optimistic attitude that Matt Damons character had. It was even funnier than some comedies I have seen this year. Besides that there are some really suspenseful scene with are handled very well by Ridley Scott. He build the suspense fairly slow but great. They also created a great setting of Mars, it really felt like a place which was gorgeously filmed.

Overall I would gave the film a 8,5 but unfortunately Trakt would allow me to give that many hearts so I rated it a 8. Simply because I liked my 9 rated films more than this one. Nevertheless I had a really good time with this entertaining, greatly directed and interesting film.

"Will you stop interrupting me while I am interrupting you!"

'Darkest Hour' is this years 'Lincoln'. Both films star a well respected actor who is unrealizable and brings one of the best performances of their career. History sure dose repeat itself.

It's quite shocking more actors have played Winston Churchill than James Bond, Spider-Man, and Doctor Who. Lets not forget we had another movie about Winston Churchill early this year named 'Churchill' staring Brain Cox. However, my excitement for Oldman to play the British bull dog was high, because I knew he's gonna stick his teeth into this meaty role, and he sure did. Gary Oldman was absolutely terrific and not once will you guess it's him. The level of humility, fear, and rage Oldman brought to role makes you see another side to Churchill. Almost like an inside look. He continues to be a legend and this is his finest hour.

Ben Mendelsohn, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Lily James all delivered solid performances in supporting roles. Each character has a major role in Churchill's life. Leaving a strong impression on me.

Without giving away too much, but there's a great scene in the film where Churchill goes onto the subway for the first time. He meets regular people and listens to them in person. It's probably one of the best scenes I've seen this year.

The cinematography was really stunning and Joe Wright directs the hell out of it. Even through some scenes go on a little bit too long for it's runtime. There's a lot of dialogue heavy scenes which may turn some people off, which it did for me at times.

Overall rating: Any British or history buff will really enjoy this one. It's a well crafted movie that's doesn't feel like one of those TV made films you sometimes get.

LIFF31 2017 #2

"Nature has cunning ways of finding our weakest spot."

There is no doubt how incredibly beautiful "Call Me By Your Name" is. Putting aside your age and sexuality, the film offers more than romance. It's not sad or tragic, but a peaceful one. It's all about falling in love. What's been said by many will be repeated here, so none of this is gonna be new to you, because it's all true.

Armie Hammer, Michael Stuhlbarg, and newcomer Timothée Chalamet all deliver terrific performances. Not a weak or unconvincing actor in sight. All of them were perfectly cast in the roles and there was no shred of doubt during the emotional parts. Especially Stuhlbarg monologue towards the end is as moving as anything I have ever seen.

The way Luca Guadagnino manages to play on your emotions and present gay romances is really mesmerizing. The warm and summer spectacle of Italy makes you want to be there. With the scenery, sunny waters, and the food which look so good, all through Sayombhu Mukdeeprom brilliant cinematography. It's paradise.

Even the sexual tension never once came across pornographic. I don't mind sex or nudity in movies and people seriously just need to stop being so sensitive about it. Ever thought that making little things a huge deal only makes it a huger deal. Or your sloppy description.

The sexuality in this film is more of an emotional connection you personally experience through the characters. And you don't have to be gay to enjoy those scenes. It avoids the typical tropes you find in movies that isn't as perfectly presented as this.

This is a truly special movie that I easily got lost in.

Even after what may well be my 100th viewing of this film, I still get pretty emotional at the ending.

While Star Trek: The Motion Picture had been a financial success, it went so wildly over budget (and was really dull), that a sequel wasn't guaranteed. When a new Trek film was finally greenlit, it would have to be made on a very small budget. This turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as many of the best things are made when you have to work within restrictions. Lack of budget meant that the filmmakers would have to be creative and make a strong, exciting story be the main force of the film.

Star Trek II delivers on that front, and marks such a change in tone for the franchise that it's almost a soft reboot. For me, this is where Star Trek really begins. While the film doesn't ignore what's come before, it establishes many things that would remain with the whole series.

This time around, Kirk and crew are training up a new bunch of inexperienced cadets on the Enterprise when an old enemy resurfaces and is intent on exacting his revenge. By this point, the cast are beginning to show their age and the film acknowledges this beautifully. It deals greatly with themes of getting older and of obsession, from both protagonist and antagonist.

The movie is tense, exciting and gripping. And yet, it doesn't move at a breakneck pace. I really appreciate the time the film takes to set things up and establish the characters. I love the revelation that Kirk needs reading glasses and is embarrassed to let his bridge crew see him wearing them. These are a wonderful bunch of people to spend time with. Add the fantastic Ricardo Montalban into the mix as Khan and you have something very special. Once the action does begin, it benefits from the time taken to get there, because as a viewer you are completely in it.

Parts of the film become almost like a submarine movie as a game of cat-and-mouse begins. The effects budget for this film was used well, with the filmmakers saving money by re-using a lot of shots, set decoration and props from other films. The new shots they do use are spectacular, and I really love the model work for the spaceships. Additionally, it has one of the earliest uses of CGI.

Through all this, the film never loses the emotional impact. The modern Trek films are all pretty mindless action with jokes thrown in, Star Trek II has action and humour (McCoy is great: "would you like the sedatives?") but also has heart and makes you care. Plus the nasty ear-bug torture scene really disturbed me as a little kid.

Add to that a gorgeous soundtrack (elements of which were later reworked for Aliens), and it ensures that I will never get tired of this wonderful film and I would recommend it as a perfect starting point for anyone who's never seen any Star Trek.

[8.0/10] When I wrote about Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I talked about how it captured the spirit of Star Trek, with its devotion to ideas of strange new life and new civilization, to heady science fiction rooted in personal reactions to these grand, nigh incomprehensible events. But if ST:TMP captures the spirit of Star Trek, then The Wrath of Khan captures its character, the way these friends and allies bounced off one another, the Wagon Train to the Stars adventurism of the franchise, and the larger-than-life personalities that gave color to this futuristic world.

And better still, it explores the ripples and consequences of the actions of those personalities in a way that both embraces and reflects on The Original Series. The 1960s T.V. show, half by fiat and half by the necessities of the medium at the time, was never heavy on continuity. Sure, it brought back Harry Mudd and might reuse The Corbomite Maneuver, but by and large the show was reset to the status quo by the time the next episode started.

The Wrath of Khan, then, does what The Original Series never could. More than its predecessor, it is firmly rooted in the televised events that preceded this latest crisis in deep space. That comes most clearly in the film’s choice of antagonist, with Ricardo Montalban reprising his role as Khan Noonien Singh from “Space Seed.” The movie deftly delivers the details as backstory for the uninitiated, but TWoK carries particular weight when Khan’s attempt at revenge feels like Kirk’s chickens coming home to roost after years of adventures since their last encounter.

But the film also, ever so slightly, deconstructs those sometimes weighty, sometimes weightless past adventures at the edge of the galaxy. Despite Kirk’s oft-professed love for his ship, he often quietly harbored dreams of a more typical life, imagining the road less traveled. The Wrath of Khan reveals that he has a son, had an old flame who effectively banished him, and only now sees the ghosts of the family he might have had.

And, more than that, it examines the anesthetizing effect of that constant status quo reset. The James T. Kirk of the 1960s T.V. show is one with nerves of steel, who spent plenty of time recording commendations with what he thought was his dying breath or trying to sacrifice himself for the greater good before some technological wizardry rescued him at the last minute. The Wrath of Khan uses that erstwhile plot armor to explore how Kirk has managed to avoid loss, to sidestep a fair amount of hardship and difficulty, that only know, when he’s thrown back into the adventure that he’s been hungry, is he forced to experience.

Of course, this is still Star Trek so those issues are explored in bombastic tones rather than quiet ruminations. But it works! The characters in The Wrath of Khan are vivid, full of life, and feel like the natural extrapolations of the characters from The Original Series fifteen years later. There was a muted quality to these same personalities in The Motion Picture, and it fit that film, not just for its somewhat colder tone, but for the sense that these were men and women who’d been apart for so long (some of them going so far as to purge emotions) and feeling out their old shorthand with one another without warning.

But by the time of The Wrath of Khan, the impression conveyed is one of a bunch of old buddies who still see one another for drinks every other weekend, even if they’re getting a bit long in the tooth. Bones and his Vulcan counterpart joust and jibe as always. Scotty’s receiving treatment for space syphilis. And heck, if anything, Spock (and in the same way, Saavik) seem a little too unreserved and emotional compared to prior appearances, surely an aftereffect of spending so long among humans.

Naturally, Kirk (and by extension, William Shatner) is just as colorful and expressive as when he at the beginning of The Enterprise’s five year mission. One of the ways that The Wrath of Khan succeeds is by framing itself as a tete-a-tete between two outsized personalities. The chess match between Kirk and Khan works as a nice spine for the film, allowing each to gain the upper hand and be bested in turn.

For Khan, that means not giving up, and seeking revenge, even when he has all the tools to go on conquering. If there’s one thing Star Trek loves, its Moby Dick homages, and TWoK makes James T. Kirk into Khan’s white whale. While never making him tragic exactly, the film gives Khan understandable motivations, underscoring the harsh conditions he and his cohort have lived under since Kirk marooned him, the loss of his wife (presumably Marla McGivers) that embittered him, and the slight of being bested and buried that fuels his fury. Montalban quivers and preens and holds focus on the screen in a fashion that makes him a fine match for Shatner’s “turn it up to eleven” screen presence.

But Khan is not a mere disposable antagonist. He extracts his pounds of flesh from Kirk in the way he feels Kirk did to him, and it highlights the deepest theme of TWoK -- that there is a cost to all this space adventuring, a cost that Kirk managed to avoid or ignore for too long, and one that he forgets about in his desire to sit in command like a younger man once more.

The Wrath of Khan contrasts age and youth. It sets our old heroes, a little more weathered and worn than before, on a ship full of trainees not expecting to actual go on duty. It puts Kirk himself, reflecting on his lost days of command, next to his son, still full of piss and vinegar. It has Khan, who’s hair is now a wispy white rather than jet black, and Carol Marcus as a lost love, to remind the commander of The Enterprise how long it’s been since these major events in his life started coming back to haunt him.

That makes it all the more meaningful and affecting when those costs start rolling in. The film briefly introduces Scotty’s nephew, a devoted and proud young cadet following in his uncle’s footsteps. James Doohan delivers the best one-scene wonder performance in the film when he mourns the loss of his young kin after Khan’s attack. The message is clear -- that not only is Khan dangerous, but that in all Kirk’s adventuring, he’d remembered the triumphs and forgotten the risks.

The greater testament to that is, of course, Spock’s sacrifice in the emotional climax of the film. While The Wrath of Khan moves along at a good clip, interspersing Kirk’s reluctant return to the captain’s chair with Khan’s ascendance before the two collide, the film reaches its greatest height after that conflict is over. When the genesis device’s shockwave is escaped and our heroes are in relatively safety, Spock shows his true colors, trying out his own version of the Kobayashi Maru test that both he and Kirk had managed to avoid until now.

Spock, despite his Vulcan stoicism, has often been the emotional center of Star Trek. His reserved demeanor makes those moments when his armor falls and he shows true affection or sentiment that much more powerful. So his sacrifice here, his willingness to let the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, to tell Kirk that he is, and always shall be, his friend, is given all the more meaning. This skirmish, this backlash from the acts of a younger Kirk, hasn’t just cost him his ship or his honor; it’s cost him his best friend.

And yet, there’s a sense of renewal and hope at the end of The Wrath of Khan. It may simply be the Genesis Device and the paradise it creates, the embrace of a lost child who says he’s proud to be Kirk’s son, or the fact that, you know, there’s four more movies and Spock’s on the cover of many of them, so presumably he’ll be okay. But even if it’s erased, the film once again does something the television show never could in the same way -- build on the years of character development and relationship the two men shared to deliver a blow to Kirk that rattles him, reminds him of how much they accomplished and how much they escape in that five year mission.

Because that’s the spirit of Star Trek too. While limited by its medium in some ways, it was about the friendship of the men and women who served aboard The Enterprise, particularly Kirk, Spock, and Bones, and it was about that appetite for adventure. “Risk is our business,” Kirk once said. It’s an easy business to be in when the requirements of a weekly television series mean you almost always come out unscathed, that foes are defeated for good by the end of the hour, and your friends will still be there when the next adventure starts.

The Wrath of Khan embraces that sense of camaraderie, the colorfulness, the slick spaceman taming the wild frontier as the journey among the stars. In that, it encapsulates so much of what Star Trek was and is. But it also goes where Star Trek had never gone before, in exploring what happens when those foes reappear to take from you what you took from them, when the seemingly disposable weekly love interests come back with your child at their side, and the man who stood beside you through so many close calls finally meets his noble end. It’s enough to make you feel young, and old, and thrilled and saddened and heartened, when the famed captain of The Enterprise still finds ways to grow up, and to remember.

How would it be living in a world without colors? Where everything was black and white? A world full of rules where everything is automated and where emotions do not exist? Certainly would not be strange to those born into it, but it is undoubtedly frustrating for some who once lived and know that the real world is much more than what a whole community is obliged to accept. Happy, always welcoming the rules because that is the only reality and they have always known.

The Giver is a science-fiction film based on the novel by Lois Lowry, with the same name. In an imaginary future world, humanity decides to create a world in Black and White, where all citizens are named "The Community". A world without color and any emotions, no feelings or different races. Consequently there is no disagreement, dispute, sadness and all work for the good of the community. What they don't know is that all their past memories have been erased from their minds making their living a complete farce. Each community member is responsible for a specific function as soon as it become and adult. Jonas a young, brave and very astute is chosen to be the new Receiver of Memories of the Community, not an easy task, since the role of the Receiver is to keep all the bad memories of the past, of each member of the community. All these memories will be pass to him through The Giver, that over some time will train him for the demanding mission. Jonas quickly turns out to discover that something is very wrong and that all the false illusion generates oppression in society.

Basically, this story carries with it a strong message about the reality of the world. We are all equal, we are human beings, and yet still continue to be wars and major injustices around the world. Pain, suffering, sadness are things that no one should experience. But there are also not so good things that also make human beings stronger. It would be ideal if the world were all colorful, everyone could have the same equality and freedom to do whatever they wanted, but at the same time it would also not be a farce too? So here we have the two sides of the coin. On one hand, the world in Black and White is more peaceful and even without color, can be joyful, but on the other hand everyone has the right not to live a lie.

The use of colors is very interesting. At the beginning of the film we see everything in Black and White just like the whole community, but as the main character of the story realizes the reality in which he lives, and as he starts to see all the memories in color, as soon as everything starts to become more bright in his head (and also when friends and family suspect that something is wrong) the world begins to be lightened, gradually becoming less dark. Coming up to the truth, the colors start gradually emerge. The visual effects are also quite effective and the whole created world seems real.

Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep are fantastic as expected! Are two great lords of Hollywood that never disappoint whatever the role. The two manage to be convincing in their roles, but since Jeff Bridges has more screen time he has a much more striking and important role in history. The young actor Brenton Thwaites (I confess I had never heard of him before) could be solid in his performance and always kept a good chemistry with Jeff Bridges. The performances of Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsgard are also quite effective, while maintaining a cold attitude.

Regarding the negative aspects, the film tension is increasing substantially since the beginning until the final act when it becomes emotionally a little less effective. While we know that the film may have a predictable ending, it does make us believe that maybe we can get a more glorious final moment. Instead the end is slightly poor taking in consideration the intensity and importance of the rest of the history. Also turns out to be somehow inconsistent regarding the emotions it whats to transmit. While sometimes becomes quite human and causes big emotions in us, others this aspect strangely fails.

The Giver turns out to be surprising given the poor reception that had the American box office. Perhaps the fact that this concept of story is kind of The Hunger Games or Divergent type (where there is always a young hero that saves everything and everyone) did not help. It as been too overused. But do not be put off by mistake. While is not a fantastic film, and has a few holes in the plot, is quite nice and is definitely a film that will entertain you from the very beginning.

Smartest creature ever. Super adaptable, evolutionary. This is by far the bad assiest being ever imagined. The science in the movie was up to my extremely lofty standards. For the first time, ever in a horror movie, this thing could theoretically actually exist makes the movie extremely interesting. The main reason I gave it a 9, is due to the fact, they should have sacrificed the first guy, immediately. I had one other issue, but that would tip spoilers. Other than that, this is a great, thrilling, mind bender of a horror sci-fi movie.

And for those who ridiculously state this was "like Alien". This movie had a super intelligent, highly evolved bacteria. This was never done before. Actual physics and biology was implemented. It wasn't just some creature out of the mind of a teenager. The crew were attempting to contain and survive. Never before have I saw a movie, that was about containing an entity while above the planet. This used an actual space station, that is real and does exist. This was not a fairy tale of a movie, as was Alien. No one was hunting this thing down with guns and such. This movie is about what can actually happen as we go frolicking around our solar system. This is something that we should actually be worried about. That is completely ground breaking in every way possible. The Europa Report was closer related to this film, but even that was not as real of a threat as this movie, since it was on a Saturn moon, using theoretical science and fictional equipment. Life used all actual equipment, actual science, and actual crew reactions, although, I would have sacrificed the first guy, immediately and launched the immature state of Calvin at the first sign of an issue. And one last thing, Calvin didn't even kill anyone, except the first guy, who was attempting to incinerate it. I bet in part two, we will find out he is actually peaceful.

This movie was nothing like Alien. Besides the fact that the setting was in space and there was a creature hunting them down (or was he?). The Alien was killing, Calvin was surviving.

Given what happened with the production of the film it is amazing that a coherent story came out at all, much less a pretty good one. Following one classic is difficult enough, but following two is nigh on impossible. The furore over the opening that abruptly resolved the fate of certain characters from the previous film is understandable, but the bleak narrative provides a satisfying conclusion to Ripley's character arc, notwithstanding the film that followed. Equally, the religious overtones form an interesting backbone, even more so in the improved workprint release. It is not particularly scary, a standoff between the Alien and Ripley in the midpoint of the film providing the only real moment of tension, and most of the secondary characters are forgettable alien fodder, an accusation that could never be levelled at the previous films. Unsurprisingly, Charles Dance stands out here as the one new character worth exploring and his relationship with Ripley in the film is the most interesting one - it is unfortunate the film dispenses with this once the Alien makes its presence known. The decision to shoot the final action scene from the Alien's POV provides the film with a unique sequence as both prisoners and creature attempt to stalk and lure each other, though this does rob the film of some much needed tension. Not a classic then, but still an interesting entry into the Alien series.