The Host

The Host starts at the last half hour of most Sci-Fi movies. In the future, Earth has been inhabited by an alien race. That is, almost all the humans here have. There are a few people left whose bodies have not been taken over, and they are fighting back. Melanie is part of the resistance who throws herself out a window instead of being captured. However, she lives and has an Alien called "Wanderer" implanted into her body. But Melanie's mind refuses to give in and so Wanderer now has a voice in her head of the girl who was fighting their race. She convinces Wanderer to find her family while the other aliens try to track "them" down.

Cast

Saoirse Ronan as Melanie Stryder/Wanderer
Jake Abel as Ian O'Shea
Max Irons as Jared Howe
Chandler Canterbury as Jamie Stryder
Frances Fisher as Maggie Stryder
Diane Kruger as The Seeker
William Hurt as Jeb Stryder

Who will like this:

This is what Fred Savage's character in The Princess Bride would describe as a "kissing movie". It is an obvious move to scoop up some left over Twilight fans. There is not so much a love triangle, as it is a love rectangle. There are two personalities in one body, which puts a damper on your love life if they are each attracted to two different people. As a space invasion movie, the most obvious reference would be Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But I found similarities to The Arrival with Charlie Sheen as well.

Phantom Thoughts

There is a lot going on here, which gives me the feeling that it is the pilot episode of a new Sy-Fy channel series rather than a movie. It is most definitely geared toward the teen audience trying to fill the void left by the end of the Twilight series, as I stated before. In fact, there is an appearance of Emily Browning in this movie, who was originally picked for the role of Bella.
    There is a lot of kissing in this movie. A LOT. I hope Saoirse Ronan invested in Chapstick before taking on this role. She plays the girl with two beings in one body, and as the alien "Wanderer" starts to fall for a human boy, Melanie's heart belongs to a boy who she met while on the run with her little brother. The kissing is not only done out of romance, but to invoke feelings in the other personality as well. Like I said, there is a lot.
    But it's not all as ridiculous as it sounds. The alien race are jellyfish like creatures that can only live in the bodies of other beings. They are not aware that what they are doing is wrong. There is a group of "police" that are trying to find the remaining humans left in the world to give them hosts as well. When Wanderer/Melanie refuses to help find them and then escapes to look for them herself, one of these police agents called The Seeker makes it her personal mission to find her. At points, she expresses emotions and actions that are more human than alien, and is relentless in her hunt.
   So what exactly ARE the Phantom's thoughts? Well, if it actually WAS a pilot episode for a series, I would probably watch it. It was alright, but it's not gonna be a blockbuster or win any awards or anything.

*Post review edit: This was the last movie famed film critic Roger Ebert reviewed before passing away April 4th 2013. He gave it 2.5 stars out of 4.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Life of Pi

An Indian man named Piscine Molitor Patel tells a young writer an adventure in his life that is said to make him believe in God. It starts when he is a little boy and is being brought up Hindu, but soon starts to learn and follow Christianity and Islam. The story picks up when his Father is forced to sell the family zoo and move his family to Canada, bringing many of the animals along on a Japanese freighter on the journey. In the middle of the night, the ship sinks, leaving Pi and some of the animals alone in a lifeboat. This fantastic tale is made up mostly of how he survives in the middle of the ocean with a Bengal Tiger...named Richard Parker.

Cast

Suraj Sharma       Pi Patel

Irrfan Khan          Adult Pi Patel

Ayush Tandon      Pi Patel (11 / 12 Years)

Gautam Belur       Pi Patel (5 Years)

Adil Hussain         Santosh Patel

Tabu                  Gita Patel

Rafe Spall           Writer

Gérard Depardieu  Cook

Who will like this movie:

While there are several scary moments in "Life of Pi", I believe that this is a story that can be enjoyed by just about all ages. However, it also has some slow-moving parts that may not keep very young viewers attention. My suggestion would be that it is not a movie for toddlers. Some of the visual splendor actually reminds me of "2001: A Space Odyssey".  And although the message is different, those who liked Tom Hanks "Castaway" should like this one as well. It almost has a feel of a M. Night Shyamalan movie (which is ironic in the fact that he was attached to write and direct the movie early on).

Phantom Thoughts

I am a little late on this movie, but seeing as how I saw it on March 14th (Pi Day) I thought it only fitting.  Watching it in 3-D is really the only way to go. The visual aspect is just to magnificent to put into words. As you may have guessed, there is a ton of CGI in it, but it done so remarkably, that you don't notice it at all. One of the main characters is Richard Parker, the name of the tiger who takes this journey with young Pi. I really could not tell where the CGI tiger began and the live action tiger ended, and THAT is an amazing accomplishment in itself.

The story of survival on the Pacific ocean is a bit fantastic and unbelievable, while being totally believable at the same time. But when taken in context of the story he's telling and why he's telling it, it all makes perfect sense.

I thought the story of how he changed his name, in fact re-inventing himself, was fun to watch. Pi makes a personal and spiritual adventure in finding out who he is and what his relationship with God is. The fact that he keeps his mind open to pretty much all religions makes anyone watching inclusive into it. This blends beautifully into the plot of Pi and Richard Parker alone and the survival of the two of them.

Although I don't think it deserved all of the accolades it received and certainly believe that there are more directors worthy of the Oscar this year than Ang Lee, I can't put up too much of an argument against them. The story was intriguing and complete. The technical execution of the special effects were flawless. And the splendor of color and brilliance that was masterfully projected upon these eyes were indescribable.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Oz the Great and Powerful

A small time circus magician/con-artist gets whisked away in a hot air balloon into a tornado where he lands in the mystical land of Oz. He is found by a young witch named Theodora who thinks he is the Wizard who is prophetized to be the savior of the land. The magician, who is also named Oz, meets a colorful cast of characters in his mission to figure out who is evil and who is not. Once he does, the battle is on to save the land of Oz...and to find out what kind of man he really is. 

Cast: 

James Franco as Oscar Diggs / Wizard of Oz
Mila Kunis as Theodora / The Wicked Witch of the West
Rachel Weisz as Evanora / The Wicked Witch of the East
Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch / Annie
Zach Braff as the voice of Finley the Flying Monkey / Frank, Oscar's circus assistant
Joey King as the voice of China Girl/Girl In Wheelchair
Bill Cobbs as Master Tinkerer
Tony Cox as Knuck the Fanfare Player
Bruce Campbell as a Winkie guard

Who will like this

It's easy to say that anyone who has seen the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" will find this an interesting option. There can be a case made that even those who liked the Broadway musical "Wicked" will be drawn to "Oz the Great and Powerful" as well. However, if you're looking for the story lines from those two to match up with this new version, you will be in for a disappointment  It is more of a visually stunning and fun movie that kids of all ages will like. A warning to parents of very young or easily frightened children, this has some scary moments, especially if seen in 3-D. 

Phantom Thoughts

Let me put things into perspective for you on where I was going in to see this movie. I have always said there are 3 movies made for children of all ages that you don't mess with: "Mary Poppins", "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and "The Wizard of Oz". That point was already proven with the Johnny Depp/Tim Burton 2005 version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". 

Another problem right from the start is the legal battle in making the film. You see, while the L. Frank Baum book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is public domain and from which Disney said it takes this movie from, Warner Brothers actually owns the rights to the 1939 movie "The Wizard of Oz". That means that characters, items and designs were not allowed to be used or copied in this movie. So the Ruby slippers were not allowed to be used, the design of Munchkinland and the Emerald City were off limits, even the mole at the end of the Wicked Witch of the West's chin made famous by Margret Hamilton could not be copied. They even had to make a different shade of green make-up to not get into legal trouble! Glinda the Good witch is from the South, where she is from the North in the original.  That did not stop them, however from taking some elements from the famous film. The bubble Glinda flies in, the smoke broom, yellow brick road and the Wizard Throne room and effects he uses are all taken directly from "The Wizard of Oz". 

So if you take all those things into consideration, what do you have left? Not really that much, actually. I did like certain nods they gave to both the book and the original movie. For instance, in the beginning of the film, you see a sign for the circus that Oz is working in: Baum Brothers Circus. A reference to L. Frank Baum, the author of the book. I also was impressed with the fact that when Theodora cried, her tears left scar tracks down her face, giving credence to her eventual downfall by Dorothy by throwing a bucket of water at her. And although they started the movie in black and white and changing to color when entering Oz (as well as going from the 4:3 Academy aspect ratio and then changing to widescreen) the change itself was less dramatic than Dorothy literally opening the door to a new world. One similarity that was not welcome was the fact that in the "Wizard of Oz", Buddy Ebsen was the original Tin Man, but had to drop out due to the Mercury poisoning he suffered from the silver make-up he had on. Mila Kunis had to take 2 months off from the removal of her make-up and prosthetics used in this movie. 

The 3-D is alright even if they used that cheap "pop out" element that I hate so much. The movie is visually fantastic and a lot of the CGI was done really well. Unfortunately, James Franco erases some of the great work those computer animators accomplished with his bad interaction with those characters. My question is this: if they put all that time and effort to make the CGI characters look real, why couldn't they computer animate Franco's hands when he is "touching" them to make it look more believable or at least not take you out of the moment? They did it on "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" when Lucas decided in post production he wanted Anikin's hand to move toward Padme before he kissed her. And no one could tell the difference. You may have not even known that until I said it just now! 

Sam Raimi also takes a page out of his own book when he uses an "Army of Darkness" approach to the Oz montage leading up to the big battle. Just like Ash who is an average guy stuck in a place where modern technology does not exist, who then with a few simple books becomes a master inventor/chemist/ engineer; Oz is a small time magician who becomes a master of illusion/electrician/chemist to pull off his fight against the Evil Witches. 

James Franco's work with the CGI was not his only fault. His performance as the Wizard was mild at best. Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams all were very good in the film as the Witches, however as much as I love Mila Kunis, her portrayal of the Wicked Witch of the East (once she turned into the green baddie) was just lacking in some way. Whether it was just the make-up and costume or if was that she didn't channel Margret Hamilton enough to be believable, I'm not quite sure. 

There's no doubt that this will be a huge success (my indifference to watching it is not enough to stop me from seeing it again with my daughter) and Disney is so sure it will be that they already have plans for a second movie. I can't imagine that it will be much better than this one, in fact I'm pretty sure it will be worse.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

A Good Day to Die Hard

The fifth installment in the Die Hard franchise, John McClane travels to Russia  on "vacation" to get his now grown up son out of some trouble he's gotten into. But when there's a McClane involved, he's bound to get himself into the wrong place at the wrong time. Multiply that by two, and it's double trouble.

Cast:

Bruce Willis as John McClane
Jai Courtney as John "Jack" McClane, Jr.
Sebastian Koch as Yuri Komarov
Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane
Yuliya Snigir as Irina

Who will like this movie:

Explosions, guns, and car chases. If I got your attention with these simple words, this is a good movie for you. Have you seen all the other Die Hard movies and your life will not be complete without completing the set? Then buy your ticket. I liken this to the Nicholas Cage flick "Con Air". This is a light show for your senses that doesn't require too much thinking.

Phantom Thoughts

A Good Day to Die Hard was a bad day to go to the movies. In my pursuit to stay neutral in my description and suggestions on who would like this movie, I found it my most difficult venture to date. Considering that I also reviewed the horrendous "John Carter" and "Battleship", that's saying something. I can't say anything good about the latest Die Hard attempt...at all. This is coming from a Die Hard fan. (pun intended) I liked all the previous movies, to varying degrees. The second and fourth ones were among my least favorites, but this one was so pedestrian, it could have been a hostage at Nakatomi Plaza. 

I laughed out loud at several moments while sitting in the theater, however they were not for any comedic quotes or situations, of which they tried to force in there throughout. No...I was laughing at how ridiculous this was. It was like watching a video game of Black Ops. Not playing it....watching someone else play it. First off, they must be trying to convince the movie going public that Mercedes Benz G-Class is a tank you can own. After John McClane carjacks one (Yes...I said carjack. Because he's in Russia and has no authority of any kind, but stops a guy and takes off in his car anyway. Speeding away yelling at the guy he just stole the car from like HE'S the asshole.). He then proceeds to do a Monster Truck style car crushing run that would put Grave Digger in the grave...and come out without a scratch. He then rams into and basically takes out an ACTUAL tank like truck...and then walks away with a few boo-boos.

That's the other thing that makes this like watching a video game...in the first Die Hard, John McClane walks over  broken glass and pretty much drags himself into a bathroom in excruciating pain. In this one, he goes through 2 car crashes, a few falls from at least a 5 story building, not to mention a few explosions. The God-like Thor would not have fared as well as "regular Joe" McClane did. 

There was evidently a story and plot twist in there somewhere, but I wouldn't even entertain a spoiler to try to explain what they were supposed to be. I am really upset that Bruce Willis would even agree to be seen on screen in this garbage. Look, I understand that you like playing the character, but any remnants of John McClane were no where to be found...even when saying the now cliche "Yippie-Ki-Yay..." line. Not even the father/son team up, double the McClane angle added any element of enjoyment. 

They should have called this "A Good Day to kill a Die Hard Franchise."

Until next time, I'll see you in the center seat....Mother-F#@%er.

Warm Bodies

Warm Bodies = The Walking Dead + Romeo and Juliet...almost literally. As told from the perspective of a 20 something zombie, who falls in love with a human girl. His love starts to change him and also change how she sees the undead. It is a relationship that can change the world in a post zombie apocalyptic era.

Cast

 Nicholas Hoult as R
 Teresa Palmer as Julie Grigio
 Rob Corddry as M / Marcus
 Dave Franco as Perry Kelvin
 Analeigh Tipton as Nora
 Cory Hardrict as Kevin
 John Malkovich as Colonel Grigio

Who will like this:

This is the perfect date movie for your Walking Dead fans, nerds or cos players. (You know who you are). It's an undead Rom Com. It has aspects of Shaun of the Dead, mixed with Twilight. It takes several liberties with classic zombie mythology that zombie fans may take umbrage with, but when taken in the light-hearted way it was written, it is enjoyable. If you are looking for a movie that's a little bit funny, a little bit scary and a bit of a romance, it's a good one to catch.

Phantom Thoughts

When I said this was the Walking Dead + Romeo and Juliet, it wasn't just a clever description. (Although it really was, if I do say so myself) It is has taken the plot directly from ol' Willie Shakes classic love story, right down to the famous balcony scene. Teresa Palmer plays Julie (Juliet) while Nicholas Hoult's zombie main character can't remember his name, but thinks it begins with "R" (Romeo...see? Get it?) 

But how does a character express his love to a girl who is fighting against him and all others like him when he can hardly even speak? This is the point in which I have to give credit to Nicholas Hoult. There are a lot of voice over through out the movie to tell R's story by what he's thinking to the audience. And this is where a lot of the humor comes from as it's cleverly written. But for an actor to express this through just the eyes and facial expressions was done very well by Hoult. Anyone who has played a zombie around Halloween (and really, haven't we all at some point?) knows that it's pretty easy to do...just become void of emotion and shuffle along as if it's a struggle to move. But to take that and emote emotion and communication at the same time is not that easy, or believable. Hoult does it. 

The other obstacle I see in making this movie is, how do you make a disgusting, rotting flesh eating zombie, a likable romantic lead in a movie? Well, first is the make-up. Which is done by mildly altering the actor to look more of just dead than a rotting corpse. Then give him the ability to speak...just a few words, and thoughts and feelings. All of which is uncharacteristic of what we know to be zombies. Next you have to have a villain  Normally this would obviously be the zombies themselves. So to solve this, they made another level of zombie called "Bonies". These mummy-like creatures are more animalistic and vicious. They are the soulless undead that other zombies eventually turn into. They are all CGI and at times, not really well done. But you can forgive that since it's not really a horror or sci-fi movie.

John Malkovich plays Julie's Father, and the leader of the human army against the zombies. I felt his role as the bad-ass military like leader didn't suit him very well. Maybe all his work as a villain in other films as well as his bad-ass character in "Red" made him a good candidate, but it didn't work for me.

SPOILER: The love that R has for Julie starts to change him, in fact "cure" him of being a zombie. This change spreads like the virus that caused the zombie apocalypse in the first place and other zombies begin to follow his example. This leads to a battle between Zombies and Bonies that is pretty funny to watch.

Was the timing of this movie planned? Hmmmm...let's see: we are at the height of The Walking Dead craze, this Summer one of the most anticipated movies is World War Z (which there is a preview for  for before Warm Bodies) and it came out just before Valentine's Day. Yeah. I would have to say that it is perfectly timed. 

Until next time, see you in the center seat.  

Killing Them Softly

Set in the backdrop of the 2008 Presidential election, an illegal Mob controlled card game is robbed by the man in charge, Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta). After the games start again, a couple of small timers decide to rob the game again, knowing Trattman will be blamed. Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is hired to find the guilty party...and kill them. 

Cast

Brad Pitt as Jackie Cogan
Scoot McNairy as Frankie
Ben Mendelsohn as Russell
Richard Jenkins as Driver
James Gandolfini as Mickey
Ray Liotta as Markie Trattman
Sam Shepard as Dillon
Slaine as Kenny Gill

Who will like this movie

     It's a bit slow moving so it's all set for a "relaxing" viewing. Sopranos fans will like to see James Gandolfini in a Mobster related role that is similar to his Tony Soprano character, without the family values. It could appeal to fans of the movies "Snatch" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels". And although it may not be on the level of a "Casino" or "Goodfellas", the movie-goers who have all those mobster movies in their DVD or Blue Ray collection could find this to be right up their back alley.


Phantom Thoughts

     I am a fan of Brad Pitt movies. He makes some great choices of the roles he chooses to play, and this one is no exception. He brings the character of Jackie Cogan to life in a brilliant and subtle manor. It would have been really easy for an actor to go over-the-top in this performance where so much hinged on how a hit man for the mob views his job and life, but Pitt pulls it back enough to not only be believable  but likable. Another fantastic job goes to James Gandolfini as the old Mob hit man who Pitt brings in to do a job with him. The character of Mickey is a boozing, washed up, hooker buying gangster who just doesn't have it anymore. Another role that would have been very easy to over do, but Gandolfini is superb in his adaptation, making the audience laugh along with him, and then giving a sad after taste. 

     SPOILER: The scene where Ray Liotta's character Markie Trattman bites it, was visually brilliant. The slow-motion action of each shot fired and the effects of them from different angles and points of view was flawless...right down to the rain drops hitting the bullet casings as they were ejected from the gun. As well as the close up of the windshield breaking as Markie's head flew into it. (Even if...in the next shot, the you see the windshield in tact. Oops!)  

     Unfortunately, the accolades stop there. i was disappointed with how most of the scenes ran on about 2 minutes too long with no good flow or rhythm. There was a good story to work with, thanks to the 1974  George V Higgins' great crime novel "Cogan's Trade" that it is based on, but it just came up short. I felt bored watching it at points where I knew I shouldn't be. It's too bad too...It really could've been so much better given the plot and the great talent that was here to work with. The finished product just came out to be...OK.

Until next time, see you in the center seat!
    

Argo

In 1979, Militants storm the U.S. embassy in Tehran in retaliation for the nation's sheltering the recently deposed Shah. More than 50 of the embassy staff are taken as hostages, but six escape and hide in the home of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor. Argo is the joint CIA-Canadian secret operation to extract six fugitive American diplomatic personnel out of revolutionary Iran. Directed, Produced and starring Ben Affleck, this is a dramatic telling of a true story.

Cast

Ben Affleck as Tony Mendez
Bryan Cranston as Jack O'Donnell
Alan Arkin as Lester Siegel
John Goodman as John Chambers
Tate Donovan as Bob Anders
Clea DuVall as Cora Lijek
Christopher Denham as Mark Lijek
Scoot McNairy as Joe Stafford
Kerry Bishé as Kathy Stafford
Rory Cochrane as Lee Schatz
Victor Garber as Ken Taylor

Who will like this:

Anyone alive to see the red, white and blue polyester suits of the bicentennial of the USA will be familiar with the topic of this movie. However, I'm not sure how many people are familiar with the way those 6 diplomatic employees were rescued. Those who do know the facts, will know that Argo takes some dramatic license much like “A Beautiful Mind”. I think older teens and 40 somethings and over will be drawn to this. It's a dramatic history lesson that is a good emotional journey.

Phantom Thoughts

I really enjoyed this movie. I think Ben Affleck did an incredible job acting and directing this film, which is so hard to do normally. I don't know if I've seen him in any other role like this and the way the movie flowed and showed suspense when there really was little to be had was done brilliantly. Alan Arkin was fantastic as the fictitious Lester Siegel (his character was a compilation of real life people involved), and John Goodman's portrayal of Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers was just outstanding!

There were a few historical inaccuracies, but what movie based on a true story doesn't? I think the choices made in adding or taking away from what really happened did not hinder the main points of this event. I believe the biggest differences were that it made the CIA look like they had more to do with the rescue than they actually did and diminished the Canadian effort somewhat. Also, there were some tense situations that were added to give suspense than what actually occurred. The last part of getting the diplomats out ran a lot more smooth than was depicted in this film.

It's kind of difficult to make a movie about something that happened where you already know how it's going to end and make it exciting and interesting. Something that still keeps your attention of if they will make it or not, similar to what Ron Howard did in “Apollo 13”, is not an easy task, but it is pulled off successfully by Affleck.

I really liked the end of the movie during the credits as well, where the passport photos of the actual people were put side by side with the actors who played them, as well as archive pics from that time with corresponding scenes in the movie. When a movie that has been out for a month and a half still gets applause from the audience, you know you have experienced something great. I can easily see a few Oscar nominations for Argo.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.