Movies


Okay…they did Rocket Raccoon well. I’m in.

If you’ve been hearing a ton of hype about this movie, believe it. The wife and I hit the theaters for some much needed relief from the almost three year old, and decided to see Her, the new science fiction drama from Spike Jonze (who won the Golden Globes for the screenplay.) Simply put, this is one of the best sci-fi movies (along with Gravity) since the Children of Men or the highly-underrated GATTACA

The movie works well because, as with the two above-mentioned movies, the science fiction is not over the top, as in Minority Report, for instance. It is the central conceit of the film, yet the sci-fi elements are subsumed in the story. There are not shiny or dirty over the top set pieces, as in Minority Report or Blade Runner — the Los Angeles of Her doesn’t look all that different from today, save for a few megastructures here and there. There are cars, and subways, and busses, and trains; no flying cars. The world looks like today, save for the fashions people are wearing and a few more advertisement displays. The technology is simply there and accepted, as nonchalant as a cell phone.

The story focuses on a melancholy writer who works for a company that creates handwritten letters for all occasions for their clients. Theodore Twombley is one of the better writers with a knack for empathizing with his subjects. He’s just come off of a breakup with his childhood friend and wife, Catherine, herself a writer and scientist who was much more successful than he. Lonely, confused, and without direction, Theodore just goes through the paces of his life.

Then he sees an add for the first “artificially intelligence operating system” for his computer. The OS, as they refer to it throughout the movie, quickly adapts itself to the users’ needs and personality. Theodore chosen a “female” OS, which names itself Samantha and quickly starts to help him straighten up his life. The two eventually fall in love. For all the comedic silliness this could have been played for (and there are a few agonizingly humorous “sex” scenes), Jonze takes the subject as seriously as he does the human relationships. And it works. The issues of being in love with something/someone without a body is a good analogy for the atomized society of social networks and texting on cell phones; or the distance inherent in the relationships people have through them.

The movie attacks these themes very subtly, mostly through visuals and casual conversation between characters. The various instances of the OS1 (including Samantha) grow and change at highly accelerated rates, there is a soft “singularity”, other other bigger ideas involving the nature of suprahuman intelligence, but these are incidental to the story of Theodore learning to love again and accept joy in his life.

Does it sound schmaltzy? Well, it would be, if it weren’t do deftly done. The screenplay is excellent, and the acting — even Joaquin Phoenix (of whom I’ve never been much of admirer) — is superb, low-key, and engaging.

Style: 5 out of 5 — it looks great, and though I found the soundtrack a bit jarring, it worked. Well written and acting. Substance: 5 out of 5 — there’s a lot packing into the movie that other film makers would have been more direct and extravagant with. Here, less is more.

On a scale of see it on Netflex, rent, matinee, or full price…full price.

I saw a poster for this movie at the local indie movie house while out on a group motorcycle ride and lo! it was available on iTunes for rent. $3.99 and an hour and a half later, I had watched Zero Charisma — a little movie out of Chris Hardwick’s Nerdist duchy (it’s not quite an empire, yet.)

Zero Charisma centers around a small gaming group lead/ruled over by gamemaster Scott Weidermeyer, who is pretty much everything I counsel against on this blog. He’s an awful person in many respects — selfish, angry to the point of near constant abuse of everyone around him, insecure, and in his real life, a loser. (He works at a Chinese-owned eatery called, wonderfully, the Donut Taco Palace III.) Scott is leading his four friends…well, more like vassals, through three years of a quest that will eventually center on a showdown he’s been crafting in his mind. Problem: one of the gamers gets a phone call during their game (a major faux pas) and has a major row with his wife who is looking to leave him. He tells the group he can’t play anymore…ever.

It’s a huge blow to Scott, for whom the game is pretty much the only safe spot he has in life. His mother shows up later, having abandoned him and his grandmother to “grow marijuana in Mexico” and who is a worse person than her son. The grandmother is pretty abusive, but more in that disappointed-as-hell-in-you manner; she obviously loves him, but wants him to sort his shit.

The recruitment drive is on for a new player but most of the gamers, unfortunately for the group, know Scott. Finally, he stumbles onto a new prospect at the local game store he’d been fired from (and sales went up 200% — you know this guy, trust me, if you’ve been gaming awhile): Miles, a hipster-type who used to play D&D and thought it might be fun to find a game. Miles is everything Scott isn’t — personable, funny, talented, and successful — with a website on comics, movies, and gaming that had “millions” of viewers (versus Scott’s 14 visitors a week to his gaming blog.) He even shows up with a six pack for everyone the first night, which sets off alarm bells for Scott.

Almost immediately it’s a battle of wills between the two for who is going to control the game group, with outright conflict breaking out when Scott fudged a die roll to thwart Miles during a game, only to be outted by Miles hot-as-hell girlfriend. (“You don’t even know how to play!” “I know cheating when I see it.”)

Zero Charisma seems to be marketed as a comedy, but it’s not very funny — Scott is a tragic character in many ways, but is so unlikeable that he’s hard to identify with. His nemesis, Miles, is likeable but is hipster douchey, especially in a key scene at the denouement, so he’s a bit hard to side with. However, watching the movie I knew all these guys after 30 years of gaming. It was funny because so much of the stereotyping was true — but it’s stereotypes that were much more common in gaming 20 years ago. Had this been made in 1990, it would have been spot-on for much of the gaming community, but now it represents a small, and aging population.

The movie is stripped down and does a lot with a little. The writing is good, but there is a lack of respect for what gaming means to a lot of folks — something Role Models hit on much better. The acting is very good, with relative unknowns doing sterling service.

Overall, I’d put it in the “rent it or see it at a matinee” level of movie, if you’re a gamer. If not, I’d say pass on this one.

There’s nothing worse than watching a movie or discussing a book with an “expert.” That astronomy major who had to explain to you why the mining rovers in Moon are not where they should be or have to bitch about how the International Space Station and telecommunications satellites in Gravity couldn’t get hit by the same bit of debris. The weapons guys that tell you that grenade doesn’t create a fireball worthy of 10kgs of explosives, or there’s no f@#$ing safety on a Glock, which also doesn’t go “click” multiple times when empty (Okay…I’m that guy.)

Well, these humorless know-it-alls at the National Health Service in the UK have turned their attention to James Bond. They were shocked…shocked to find that Bond had a drinking problem, something that was painfully obvious in the Ian Fleming books, and was hinted at in multiple movies from the Moore period on. The NHS killjoys tracked his consumption by unit (at modern standards of drinking…not those of the 1950s for the books) and found that Bond was dropping back liver-damaging levels of alcohol. Four times the recommended level — how could he function? He would be impotent (a problem the NHS wallah would certainly know something about), and could shoot or drive straight.

1) All racial stereotypes included — Bond was a Scot. In the ’50s. A survivor of World War II and an MI6 agent when it was dangerous. He drank to excess because he had lost people he loved, was in a soul-destroying job, and most importantly — was a pulp fiction hero, hence an idealized version of what a “man” should be. My family in Scotland functions just fine on amounts of alcohol that Americans would instantly define as “clinical abuse.”

2) They were shocked to find he drove drunk. Again…1950s. Of course he did. We didn’t have schoolmarms at every turn telling us to wear seat belts, drive sober, and wear motorcycle helmets. (That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea in all of these cases — just that life was a lot quieter when you didn’t have some meddlesome prat up your ass moralizing.)

3) How could he shoot straight? I don’t shoot drunk, as I recognize it’s whacking stupid, but I have had to qualify and shoot in the field on three days of sleep deprivation — just as debilitating, once you factor in adrenaline and discomfort — and I still shot expert. It’s doable. Just not likely.

4) But then again, a guy that tools around in a Bentley and can get a Beretta .25 to kill folks — that’s not a likely man. One that can get a Walther PPK to fire three times without jamming is superhuman. (Really, James — you gave up the exemplary P99 for a weapon your own service pulled for its lack of reliability? Crap…I’m doing it, too!)

5) The quip about him not being able to stir his drink…Bond doesn’t make his own drinks, deeb! And shaken is better. Even for a drink as awful as the Martini.

Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing a Bond that was a bit off after a night of drinking, but who powers through it while not being quite as physically capable. That would make him even more badass. Or imagine the scene — “We’ll launch the raid at dawn.” “Why dawn, 007? So they’ll be at their low point in their circadian rhythm?” “No, because I’ll have dried out enough to not get shot to death.”

One of the other points they might have hit on (and that Never Say Never Again addressed) was that Bond was also a foodie — a serious gourmand snob whose diet was an artery-clogging festival of delight. He smoked to excess — something they toned down in the Brosnan films, but brought back with Craig — why not tell us Bond would be an emphysemaic or in Stage 1 lung cancer? Here’s something you skinny-assed scientists didn’t take into account — Bond didn’t expect (like so many hard living people) to live past his 20s…30s…last week. When you’re in a job that involved getting brutally murdered at any moment, why wouldn’t you smoke, drink, and eat to excess? Plenty of athletes do it and did quite well in that time period (until you fall apart.)

Oh, that brings up 6): It’s fantasy! Just let me enjoy it.

Andrey Klimov did this entire project on his lonesome…

Go see it. No spoilers in this

Alfonso Cuarón did a fantastic job with the movie, which must have required a staggering amount of scene blocking to mesh the CGI, lighting, and live action together. (Apparently, they had to design a large lightbox set to get the lighting correct.) The sound design is superb and uses a combination of silence, transmitted sound (you are hearing things as the characters would, transmitted through touch, and the use of musical queues (particularly heartbeat like percussion.)

There’s a few inaccuracies for the people that have to piss on everything they see — yes, the shuttle’s no longer flying; yes, the debris comes from an odd direction and shuttle activity and comms satellites are at different altitudes. If you’re thinking about that stuff, either go home or start watching the movie. You know, the part with the characters in it. I stop noticing any of this about 10 minutes in when the action starts. The pace is well done, with moments of near panic broken by interludes of character development.

The visuals are stunning and the 3D — which I abhor — was used properly, to create depth of field. It’s probably the most effective use of the technology since Avatar. There’s a moment when Bullock’s character, Dr. Stone, opined, “I hate space.” I had the exact opposite response — the beauty of the setting makes me want to go up even more.

Speaking of Bullock: The movie hinges on her performance. She’s the only one on screen for 90% of the movie, and she’s superb in the role. They didn’t pretty her up, and the character’s backstory is tragic without being too saccharine. The sense of hopelessness and loneliness she evokes was grand.

Style: 5 out of 5. Substance: 4 out of 5 — it’s a straight out action survival pic, but there’s a lot of nice touches that boost it from 3 to 4 for me…mostly due to Bullock’s performance.

It’s a must see and even worth the full price for 3D.

A short dealing with privatized policing. Of course, it only goes for the dystopian view, while missing some of the benefits — like state-sponsored coercion and violence.

There’s some real sci-fi/cyberpunk RPG gold in this

Here’s how to do it, Hollywood…

« Previous PageNext Page »