The Time Traveler's Wife

imdb link Photos
Plot: Henry (Eric Bana) is a born time traveler. He begins time traveling to avoid death in a car accident that kills his mother, and continues to time travel as he ages. He meets a Clarie (Rachel McAdams) when he is about 25, and then he time travels back to meet her as a child. As Claire ages she meets Henry over and over, and they have a life together -- living out the situations made possible by the premise.

Review:
The movie works because of a well-written script and good acting that plays out as chemistry between Henry and Claire. The pacing is good, and the tension builds up to the end.
This a romantic fantasy not unlike stories of princesses and moats, but perhaps better because the characters are in modern situations. The plot device of time traveling sets up two people who were "meant to be together," which is a staple of the whole genre of romances.

It confuses me why the teenage Claire does not rebel from him, and go play the field. I am pleased that the 25 year old Claire at least brings this up. Still this is a fantasy, and it is not profitable to ask these questions. Similarly this is not a science fiction, and the movies skirts the time paradoxes that science fiction writers dream up -- that's fine because that is what fantasy is about.


This is a puff piece of pop entertainment with no higher motive; similarly the characters while realistic, and not living out three dimensional lives with issues besides relationships and romance and perhaps procreation.
I would have liked a little snapper sound track too.
Cast: Rachel McAdams, Eric Bana

Crew: directed by Robert Schwentke; based on the book by Audrey Neffenegger

Rating: 2.5 flasks
1/2



More: I like the plot line with Alba (Haley & Tatum McCann), whom they could easily make a sequel about. I could see that as a Disney channel series.

Yet More: Zooey sings the song that plays during the aforementioned opening.

Ponyo [English]; Gake no ue no Ponyo

imdb link Photos
Plot: An underwater Princess (Ponyo) falls in love with a boy (Susuke,) and wants to turn into a human girl. It is a version of Hans Christian Anderson's The Little Mermaid, but told from the boy's point of view

Review: Sincere, Adorable, Cute -- and I thought this movie was great. Many will disagree; this movie is probably too sincere, too adorable and too cute for most Americans. If you can't stomach a movie full of adorable and cute -- see District 9. The biggest criticism of this move is that no one is this pure-of-heart, and that the world is not this happy. This is a genre film where the audience receives an escapist experience to a Fairy Tale World.
The animation is like the previous movies from Miyazaki -- perhaps more artistic. The backgrounds are colored pencil drawings and watercolors, and the anime-style characters movie in front.
The movie was charming from the opening sequence. I decided that Ponyo was going to be a spectacle and to suspend disbelief, sit back, and watch. Ponyo's little sisters are playful and fun to watch. Ponyo's discovery of the land world is clever and interesting. Ponyo's running on the waves scene is unforgetable. The use of a toyboat to sail to the nursing home is clever. The whole movie is visually satisfying and occasionally spectacular.

There is strong character development for Ponyo herself, and there are interesting minor characters including the old people at the nursing home, and the Mom, Risa. The boy, Susuke, is pretty one dimensional in his love for Ponyo. The un-varnished devotion is why one needs to suspend cynicism to enjoy this movie.
The story is based on Hans Christan Anderson's Little Mermaid, but its moral teaching of accepting other people and helping others is clear.
Crew: Written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki

Rating: 3.5 flasks
and 1/4

More: I am no expert on Japanese culture, but I believe that Japanese pop culture is more sincere and less cynical than American culture. This movie is an example of that. Previous Miyazaki movies have been big hits with adults in Japan. In the US, this probably will not cross-over to the general audience. For example, my wife could not wait to leave the theater.

Even more: The children had a sequence naming pre-historic fish. I can't ever see that happening in a Shrek or Toy Story movie. I like the idea that they had anatomically correct pre-historic fish swimming around. I even recognized a trilobite.

Yet More: It occurs to me that most people that like Ponyo probably would not like Bruno, but I liked both. What does that mean?

District 9

imdb link Photos

Plot: Aliens land on earth, but they are quickly herded into an alien ghetto in Johannesburg, with an obvious parallelism with the Apartheid era in South Africa. The people want the ghetto moved farther from the city, and when soldiers try to do that, one civilian, Wikus, is contaminated with an alien substance. Later in the movie the aliens begin to fight back, and the movie ends like an action movie.

Review: The first half of the movie is a political allegory, and the second half of the movie is an action movie. The whole movie is told with a handheld camera in a documentary style. The character development is awful, and Wikus Van De Merwe played by Sharlto Copley, is creepy and unlikeable. I did like the baby alien though.

I don't know how they animated the aliens, but that seemed realistic thoughout. They were pretty ugly, and they spent a lot of time wiggling their facial appendages at the camera.

This is a Sci-Fi, and it does not need to make sense, but this movie makes less sense then most. There are too many loose ends that have no purpose except to advance the story.

There is a tradition of Sci-Fi that is darker and scarier than recent Sci-Fi films. This film is trying to channel that tradition, and maybe it succeeds in bringing Sci-Fi back to its roots -- on the other hand, better dialog, more character development, and more attention to the plot would have helped.

I ordinarily give a extra points for taking on a tough political or moral issue, but this was a heavy-handed morality play. The messages of this movie -- something like, "People are terrible," and "Be nice or the aliens will get revenge," -- do not seem worth the effort.

Cast: Sharlto Copley -- the only actor worth mentioning

Crew: Written and directed by Neill Blomkamp; produced by Peter Jackson

Rating: 2.0 flasks

More: District Six was a impoverished inter-racial district of Cape Town South Africa during their apartheid era. Notably 60,000 black people were evacuated from District Six during the 1970's. District Six was the subject of many novels, songs, a museum, and a musical. [The poster for the musical is at right.]

Julie and Julia

imdb link Photos

Plot:

Julie and Julia is the story of struggling writer Julie Powell who starts a blog about her life. Julie (Amy Adams) is trying to get her life in order by blogging about cooking every recipe in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. In parallel, the movie tells the story of Julia Child (Meryl Streep) learning French cooking, teaching French cooking, writing the cookbook, and getting it published. The film contrasts Julie and Julia's husbands and romances.

Review: Julie and Julia is a fluffy sweet confection which is so positive & likeable that I have to recommend the movie. Amy Adams' character seems so sisterly and so girl-next-door so that I feel like I know her from somewhere. Meryl Streep's Julia Child is so lively and dynamic that even watching her chop onions is fun. The dialog by director Nora Ephron gives us a look into the character's lives that keeps the uneventful plot interesting.

I always like Stanley Tucci. Amy Adams should get an Oscar nomination. Meryl is fun, but there is some overacting.

Cast: Amy Adams, Meryl Streep, Stanley Tucci, Chis Messina

Crew: directed & screenplay by Nora Ephron; based on the book Julia and Julie My Year of Cooking Dangerously by Julie Powell; Julie's real life blog is here. Her Salon blog about the Julia/Julie project is here.

Rating: 3.0 flasks

More: Best feel-good movie of the Summer

Even more: An old demographic at the theater-- almost as old as Whatever Works

The Hurt Locker

imdb link Photos

Plot:
Three soldiers in a bomb squad are in Baghdad in 2004 during the war. The squad leader is Sgt William James (Jeremy Renner) who is aggressive and a little crazy. Sgt JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) is careful and by-the-book, and and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) is afraid of getting killed. [MILD SPOILERS] They defuse a network of IED's, defuse a booby-trapped car, get caught in a skirmish, defuse a body bomb, and deal with a suicide bomber in a bomb belt.

Review: Hurt Locker is constant suspenseful action -- moving from one explosive situation to another one. The aggressive and a death-defying Sgt James puts the other soldiers into stressful situations, and there is constant tension between them. The non-battle scenes are also fast-moving and interesting.

Karen Bigelow's directing is the biggest star -- every scene is gripping. The whole movie is one climax after the next.

All the acting is very good, but especially Anthony Mackie --their fear makes us all more tense.

Cast: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Owen Eldridge

Crew: directed by Karen Bigelow; written by Mark Boal -- who was embedded with a bomb squad in Iraq

Rating: 4.0 flasks!

More: As good a war movie as Black Hawk Down.

Whatever Works

imdb link
Photos

Plot: Boris Yellnickoff (Larry David) is a retired professor living in New York City, who is exceptionally bitter, suicidal, and caught in existential angst. He meets and takes in run-away, homeless, high school girl, Melodie Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood), whom he belittles and insults. Gradually, Melodie gives Boris a purpose to live, and Boris gives Melodie a bigger vocabulary and a cosmopolitan, atheist world-view. Boris and Melodie marry and then Melodie's Mom (Patricia Clarkson) enters the movie, meets Boris, [MINOR SPOILER] changes her life-style, and decides to stay in New York.

Review: Whatever Works is philosophical statement where the characters are archetypes playing out a morality play. The writer/director, Woody Allen, uses this to give an apologetic for his life and lifestyle that included marrying his step daughter, Soon-Yi Priven. Allen is saying "Whatever Works" for me is good enough, in this bitter, meaningless world we live in.

There are very few movies of this kind, and it is hard to compare to other movies. It is like Bruno in that way. This type of material might be better treated in experimental theater. This film from a young director might be widely hailed, but the auto-biographical aspect is unmistakable.

The acting in the movie is excellent. As in other recent Allan movies, this cast gives a fine performance, and there is wonderful chemistry between the characters.

The movie is "over-written" which means the writing is so clever and interesting that I was continually reminded the real people don't talk this way. The dialog (and monologs) in this movie is (are) the best and most enjoyable part -- really good word selection. Little happens in this movie visually, it is entirely people talking.

Should you see this movie? Like Bruno, you would need a thick skin. Allen thinks the American people are "inch-worms" and "morons." However, some may find the movie's frank discussion of the post-modern issues cathartic. Hedonists and narcissists and Ayn Ryan enthusiasts may find "Whatever Works" heart-warming.


Cast: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson
Written and directed by Woody Alan

Rating: 2.5 flasks; I liked seeing it because it was so different. Since it is so different, it is hard to rate. It gets 1/2 flask bonus for taking on hard issues.

More:This was the oldest audience that I have ever seen a movie with. Woody's fans are aging.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

imdb Photos

Plot: Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and Harry continue to track down Voldemort, and they enlist the help of Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), who has a clouded past. Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) hatches a plan to kill Dumbledore, while Harry, Hermione, Ron and Ginny flirt. This movie pushes the relationships forward and foreshawdows the climatic attack of the "Death Eaters" at the end of the movie.

Review: Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Hermione (Emma Watson) have developed into solid young actors that are able to carry subtle emotions that make the flirty product lines possible. Director Yates stresses these story lines and slights the action and backstory plotlines -- which gives this film more of a romantic comedy flavor.

The viewer needs to be familar with the story-line as the story is not free-standing, but you don't need to be a dedicated fan to follow the story. They do a good job of setting up how Draco is going about his plot.

This movie was fun and worthwhile, but it did not have the sense of wonder of the first two movies. The art direction has gone on vacation. The biggest talent was writing a screenplay that caught the whole plot while fitting it into 300 minutes.

This movie resists genre classification. A little rom-com, a little dramatic mystery, and a bit of gothic horror. The darkness makes these movies more adult and dramatic, and the emotions are more thoughtful -- the wonder and the funness of the first movies is gone.


Cast and crew: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rubert Grint; directed by David Yates; based on the book by JK Rowling.


Rating: 3.0 flasks



More:
I'm a fan, and I liked it. It is not my favorite Harry Potter movie, but it was solid and enjoyable. I would not have missed it.

Even More [MAJOR SPOILER]: Seriously you should not read this yet, if you have not seen the movie. The movie goes out of its way to preserve the question of whether Dumbledore's death is an assisted suicide or a murder. That is, is Snape good, or is Snape bad? In the movie, Dumbledore seems to know he is about to be attacked, and even asks for Snape to be brought to him. He also says "Please Severius," which could mean please kill me or please don't. Earlier in the movie Dumbledore and Snape are discussing some sort of agreement that Snape wants to back out of. This could be an agreement to work as a spy, or it could be an assisted suicide. On the murder side, Snape makes a vow to kill Dumbledore at the beginning of the movie, and seems to be acting it out. Snape is shown without any emotion regarding the murder.

Secondly, Dumbledore's death is for no purpose -- unlike a Christ-figure or Obi-Wan Kenobi -- the death does not save someone else or advance a larger purpose. Even in the final book, there is little reason for Dumbledore to die.