"Bronson"

So, I think I liked this movie. I'm pretty sure I liked this movie. My initial reaction is that I liked this movie and upon further contemplation I still like this movie. In fact, I like this movie a lot. I'm not sure it's a movie I could watch over and over again though. Tom Hardy (few may know him as one of the brothers from "Warrior," more may know him as Eames the forger in "Inception," all will know him as Bane in "The Dark Knight Rises.") plays Michael Peterson who takes upon himself the moniker Charles Bronson and is touted as "the most violent prisoner in Britain." He is also apparently the most naked prisoner in Britain. If not for anything else, his performance is worth watching this movie for; not the naked pushups he does, or the naked fighting he does, or the naked lotion rubbing he does before fighting, or the naked body painting he does before fighting, but his acting performance. He is fantastic and I've never seen a shaved head and mustache pulled off so well. He was truly a comical and engaging character that left me in stitches.* Perhaps the biggest problem with this movie is it's montage style throughout. It does make this movie a little on the difficult side to watch, yet at the same time works so well with the character of Bronson and how he is portrayed, a confused, out of control, off the cuff, wacky, wild, almost ADHD type individual. But once we have the montage that seems to inhabit the first half of the movie introducing him, we then settle into a more linear narrative of his release from an asylum for the criminally insane, his brief stint out of prison (69 days) as a underground street fighter and his subsequent incarceration in which he shows promise of bettering himself, only to take a hostage in prison and show that he really is just out to make a name for himself in any way possible. The montages do make for great scenes, great clips, great one-liners, great parts and I'm not sure this style of filmmaking would really work for any other movie with any other character played by any other actor. My head is telling me that this shouldn't have worked, but it did. All these great parts made a collectively great movie experience.

*Do you like how I used a British term meaning to laugh uproariously since I'm talking about a British movie about a British icon? "Stitches" is a British term right?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172570/

"Alien"

Having bought a new television and blu ray player a few weeks ago, I finally watched my first movie in high definition on my new television and player. Seeing it was my first one, I thought I'd make it a good one, one of my favorites, in Alien. I love this movie! I love the subtle tension at the beginning of the movie that slowly builds to sheer thrills. This movie is true horror, fear of an unknown assailant that you never even see in full until the end of the movie. It's the situation that creates that tension you feel, not some crazed murderer, monstrous alien, or deranged creature or man causing blood to spurt all over your screen. Watching this movie this time around I had a few thoughts that stuck out. One, I can't believe this movie was made in 1979! Is it dated? Sure, but it doesn't feel that dated. I think part of the reason it doesn't feel dated is another thing I love and that's how dirty space feels in this movie. Other science fiction shows try to make space this sophisticated, clean, futuristic place. In "Alien," space is a very dirty, very dark, very dismal place, which matches the mood this movie is supposed to incite. My final thought is maybe a general inquiry to all those who read my blog (which is really basically J. Micah with whom I've had this conversation with already) but is Ridley Scott one of the most underrated directors? Do people know who he is? Do people realize how great he is? I hope so, because this movie is just one example of how great he is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/

"The Avengers"

Okay, so I've go to be honest about something; this movie was kind of awesome. The best decision, and the best thing Marvel could have done, was getting Joss Whedon to write and direct this film. Is that to say this movie is perfect? The best super-hero film of all time? No. Let's not get carried away from the anticipation and excitement of it all. But it was quite good and very fun. What works best for this movie, and why I think Joss Whedon was the perfect match, is the ensemble cast and how Joss is able to direct the group dynamic. Perhaps it's his roots in television which allow him to do this so well, but he excelled in this capacity. Perhaps my favorite aspect was the relationship between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner and how brilliant they are and how much they really are alike. And whilst they meshed in one way, Bruce Banner was able to relate to Thor through his alter-ego Hulk and their strength and power. Thor and Captain America with their sense of good. Captain America with Hawkeye and Black Widow as lesser beings among apparent gods, and in one case an actual god. The clashing of these characters was fun to watch as they argue and fight one another. The meshing of these characters was fun to watch as they banter and fight with one another. I give all the credit for this to Joss Whedon. Now it would be easy to dismiss this movie with Loki as the main villian, seeing that Thor defeated him by himself, but Loki has seen things and become more ambitious and has a little more help than just him, though he himself is quite the adversary and another reason why I liked this movie, one of the reasons I liked "Thor" so much. Now this being Marvel, they do like to go with style over substance, but I thought Joss did a great job of giving that style substance when he could. But yes, there are times when its just style. Luckily there are times when it's all substance to try and balance it out. There are a few minor things that I didn't like. Thor seemed to be dumbed down a bit in his power, or at least inconsistent with it. The catalyst for the Avengers finally coming together was slightly cliche and lacking, but at the same time understandable and not surprising. Sam Jackson sometimes is just Sam Jackson. And just because this is based in a fictional universe, it doesn't mean your normal average human should gain super human abilities, especially when it's not their power. But overall, I really liked this movie. It's what a summer blockbuster should be, and I think more. Just make sure you stay after the credits (as if that needed to be said for a Marvel movie these days), both the animated credits and scrolling credits.

Oh, and postscript, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner was fantastic. Better than Eric Bana and Ed Norton.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

"The Thing" (2011)

When compared to the original 1982 version, this movie pales in comparison, and that's being generous. The only worth this movie has, and granted the movie must be watched in it's entirety to appreciate it I think, is the sequence shown at the beginning of the closing credits.Or! Or. Or. Or. You could just watch the original which is amazing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/

"War Horse"

Full disclosure? I did not like this movie. Even when I saw the preview for this movie I was not impressed. I had little to no expectations and the "no expectations" part was met. What success this movie did achieve, financially and critically, had to have been solely based on the merits of Steven Spielberg. It's nice that he has worked his way into the position, and rightfully so, that he can do what projects he likes and wants, but this was a miss. What little expectations I did have was that it was Steven Spielberg which means this would at least be well made, high production value. Even that was disappointing. Sometimes brilliant, but more often than not I was wondering where the lighting people were. And for all the talking that was done to the horse, the main character in the movie, he was not much of a character. I'm not expecting him to talk, smile, wink, dance, sing, or anything like that, but a horse with a personality would have been appreciated. I certainly liked the idea of the movie, following the horse's story and how it intertwines and makes full circle, but it was just, and I can't believe I'm about to say this about a Steven Spielberg directed film, poorly executed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568911/

"The Abyss" (Special Edition)

So, I thought I had seen this movie before many years ago, but watching it, I remembered absolutely nothing which leads me to believe this was my first viewing. Now, to be honest, going into this movie I was determined to not like it. I have an irrational bias against James Cameron and am intent on nitpicking everything he does to the point of dislike. With that said, whilst watching the movie I was totally loving it. Sure I thought the characters were pretty stereotypical, most the dialogue was cheesy, certain plot points were cliche, and character relations were unoriginal, but the ride was great. Unfortunately it was a ride with a disappointing ending. I hate movies that are preachy, and if this wasn't preachy I don't know what is. I'm not opposed to movies with messages, in fact, most movies have messages and are made better or worse by how they present their particular message. But when you beat me over the head with your political ideals and it's not a documentary, you're not going to win me over. I guess I just have to question your creative integrity when you're using this platform to further your political agenda and not have the focus be that of story telling. You are letting one overshadow the other and in my opinion it should not be that way. You are in the business of story telling and entertainment, and what you do should be to challenge people to think, not tell them what to think. It is especially disappointing when I was enjoying the movie throughout, and all I come away with is a negative opinion because you had to spend the last ten minutes on a soap box. I want to say that I liked it, but if you were to ask me what parts I liked from it, all I can remember is the ending that I did not like.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/

"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"

This movie is highly underrated and I do not know why. The acting is superb; the friendship between Russell Crowe's Captain Aubrey and Paul Bettany's Doctor Maturin is fantastic. The cinematography is eye-popping; the ocean never looked so great and inviting. The direction is great; is Peter Weir just as underrated as this movie? The story is engaging; the exciting open sea battles, intriguing oceanic pursuit, and what I assume is realistic and entertaining crew dynamics draw you in. Never have I wanted more to be a 18th/19th century sea voyager, yet at the same time glad I'm not. This movie is strong in every aspect and I have no idea why more people don't like. You like it! You better like it! I'm telling you to like it now! You'll like it and like liking it! Like it!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311113/