Both fun and funny, the animated sci-fi children's movie "Planet 51" is one of the best movies I've seen this year.
Some big names were drawn in for the voices in this film (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Jessica Biel, Justin Long, Gary Oldman, Seann William Scott, John Cleese), and they really helped to pull this off. But it was the writing and the story that did it for me.
Basically, it's an alien movie, except that the only human in the film is the alien. Johnson provides the voice for a NASA astronaut who lands on a planet that he believes to be empty, hoping to be a hero back home. As it turns out, that planet is entirely populated by cute green aliens who don't seem to know a lot about astronomy (though they have floating cars, powerful weapons, and massive underground military bases).
In other words, the astronaut is the alien and struggles to overcome the suspicions and fears of the natives, so he can get safely back home.
The movie is full of fun cultural references that many young children won't get until they're older... For instance, (1) Astronaut Baker (Johnson) recites lines from Star Wars and Terminator. (2) The automated rover is built like the famed Mars Rover (yet its shell and movements reminded me of WALL-E, something that kids will understand).
(3) Planet 51's cities are laid out like crop circles, as is the secret underground base. (4) The plot is basically ET in reverse. (5) Several characters use the words "the right stuff," referring to the movie "The Right Stuff." (6) When Baker plants a U.S. flag upon his first arrival, he's humming the theme from "2001: A Space Odyssey."
There are many others.
The animation design was original and fun, with many tiny details apparent to the careful viewer. But a couple of things confused me about Planet 51.
Early on, we're led to believe that they're living in an alien version of the U.S., as it was supposed to be in the 1950s. There are full-service filling stations, campy science fiction movies depicting scary alien invaders (one of them is called the "Humaniacs"), clean-cut school children, and white picket fences. People talk to their neighbors, have barbecues, and listen to 1950s rock and roll tunes.
But then we begin to notice things that don't fit in the 1950s. For instance, all the vehicles on Planet 51 are actually hovercraft, floating a few inches above the ground. The army has very advanced weaponry, though most of the soldiers are ridiculously stupid. The massive underground base ("Base 9") is quite advanced for such a culture.
Most children likely won't notice these anachronisms; they just make the movie more fun, so I let it slide.
But one thing I couldn't let slide were the few science mistakes. When Astronaut Baker is teaching his new alien friend about the universe, he says Earth is about 20 billion miles away. That would put Planet 51 somewhere outside the orbit of Pluto, too far from any sun to provide light and heat for life (yet Planet 51 has sunlight similar to Earth's).
In real life, the nearest star to Earth (besides Sol, our sun) is Alpha Centauri, about 4.24 light years from Earth. That's about 25 trillion miles away (a million times further than Baker said).
Another thing that seemed odd was that Baker came all that way (either 20 billion or 25 trillion miles) by himself, yet his starship was clearly fitted for many more people. There were extra spacesuits inside, and several extra seats.
These are the only things I found that justified taking points off my rating.
The music was lively and always fit the scene. Normally, I think movie music should go unnoticed, other than to help set the mood, but in this case it was part of the fun.
Is there anything in this that your kids shouldn't see?
Well, the first couple of scenes are a little scary. Aliens are shown vaporizing the green men of Planet 51. But we quickly learn that it's just a movie on a screen. Shots are fired at Astronaut Baker throughout the film, though he's never hit. Some of the green men shoot at each other near the end of the film and then suffer a mild electric shock.
In other words, it's a very clean film. All of the violence and action is animated in a humorous way. Of the hundreds of children around me in the theater, only one cried during the movie, and that one was an infant. All the toddlers and other children seemed to enjoy every bit of the movie. A little girl next to me kept leaning over to her mother to say, "I liked that part!"
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: Planet 51
Wikipedia: Planet 51
Rating: PG
(for mild sci-fi violence and some suggestive humor)
Length: 91 min. (1:31)
Director: Jorge Blanco
Genre: sci-fi / adventure / comedy / family
My Rating: 9 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Jessica Biel, Justin Long, Gary Oldman, Seann William Scott, John Cleese
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
! SPOILER ALERT !
(This review contains plot details for "The Reader." If it bothers you to read plot details before seeing a movie, then do not read further. You have been warned.)
Overall, watching "The Reader" was an enjoyable experience, but it does suffer from a few fatal flaws in my opinion.
This film tells the story of a 15-year-old German boy (played by David Kross) in the 1950s who falls in love with 33-year-old German woman (Kate Winslet). As their heavily sexual affair grows, it becomes apparent that she him reading books to her more than she enjoys what he sees as a romance. (We learn later that she is illiterate.)
A few years later, the boy is in law school and attends a Nazi War Crimes Trial, only to find that his former lover is one of the defendants. He learns that she was a guard at a concentration camp and is accused of 300 counts of murder.
For me, the key detail of the story is that Winslet's character would rather go to prison for life than admit she can't read. In trial, she admits to writing the condemning SS report, though she couldn't have done so.
This is where the story falls apart for me. I know that many illiterate people are ashamed to admit they can't read, but I believe any of them would speak up quickly if it meant saving their own lives from a prison sentence, especially for a War Crimes conviction. In fact, many people who can read and write would likely lie and claim to be illiterate if it meant saving their own hides.
Everything else in the story was completely believable. The film goes on to show the boy as a man (played by Ralph Fiennes), who sends tapes of himself reading to Winslet's character in prison. It ends with Fiennes' character telling his grown daughter about the experience, after his former lover has killed herself.
The set design, writing, acting, and cinematography were very well done, which is why I rate the movie as highly as I do, despite the weak ending and the fatal flaw mentioned above.
Conservative folks won't like it because of the large quantity of nudity: Winslet and Kross are naked for much of the movie's first half. According to IMDb.com, Kross was 17 when the movie began filming, but production waited until his 18th birthday before filming the nude scenes, which brings up another point: Isn't it silly that they could film him nude the day after his birthday, but not the day before? I still think our arbitrary age limit laws are insane, but that's a commentary on society and government, not on this movie.
Winslet won a best actress Oscar for her role, and she should have. Her performance carried the movie in my opinion. Kross wasn't even nominated for best actor, though he probably should have been (especially considering other nominations included Brad Pitt in the "Benjamin Button" movie and Frank Langella in "Frost/Nixon.") But Kross likely couldn't have beat out Sean Penn's fantastic job in "Milk."
Conclusion: I'm glad I saw this movie, but I'm also glad I waited for the DVD.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: The Reader
Wikipedia: The Reader
Rating: R
(for some scenes of sexuality and nudity)
Length: 124 min. (2:04)
Director: Stephen Daldry
Genre: Drama / Romance
My Rating: 7 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Kate Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes, Jeanette Hain
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
This is one of those films I dragged my wife out to see because I'm a huge fan of science fiction, apocalypse, end-of-the-world type movies (she's not). And, in a very rare instance, she admitted I was right. It's a great movie.
Overall, the movie 2012 is well done. Unlike many news reports as of late, this film doesn't focus on the Mayan calendar (it's only mentioned a few times, and mostly in the background). It focuses on a somewhat believable scientific event that changes the course of the world and forces humanity's governments to make difficult decisions.
Led by an expert cast (John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover, Woody Harrelson, and more), 2012's story begins when scientists discover that neutrinos from a huge solar flare are heating the Earth's core like a microwave oven and will soon cause a global catastrophe (shifting tectonic plates, tidal waves, etc.)
When this information comes to the attention of high-ranking government officials, they secretly begin work on a project to protect the future of the human race, though they know that not everyone can be saved.
There was more pre-disaster story than I expected, based on the previews, but the story quickly moves from character introduction to the really good stuff. Like any good disaster movie, 2012 draws the viewer inexorably toward huge explosions and mass destruction.
The cinematography relies heavily on CGI, which is to be expected, but the computer-generated action is powerfully and realistically presented. Some of it is recognizable as CGI only because the viewer knows it couldn't have been filmed any other way — it looks realistic.
Though the action is almost non-stop, the film does pause occasionally to show the very real impact such an event would have on real people, and how those people would cope with the knowledge that the world could be coming to an end.
Don't expect in-depth character development or a very strong moral lesson; it's not that kind of story. It's what I call a "What if?" story. It takes a basic premise and explores what would happen, given a few early assumptions.
I took points off for a few unrealistic timing sequences. For instance (small spoiler alert), when Cusack and his family are rushing to the airport to catch a small plane, and the Earth's devastation is following them, they are able to warm up the twin-engine craft and take off in a matter of seconds. Unlike a car, you can't just turn on an airplane and fly away. The same mistake is repeated a couple of other times in the movie, and it bothered me as a technical person, knowing that such a thing would have been impossible.
The ending also seemed a little weak, but I couldn't really think of anything better without lengthening an already long movie. I won't spoil it for you; it's worth seeing for yourself.
Conclusion: If you like big-budget CGI destruction and fast-paced end-of-the-world action on an epic scale, check this movie out. It's a heck of a ride.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: 2012
Wikipedia: 2012
Rating: PG-13
(for intense disaster sequences and some language)
(Note: "some language" includes the F-word, which is rare in PG-13 movies)
Length: 158 min. (2:38)
Director: Roland Emmerich
Genre: action / sci-fi / drama / thriller
My Rating: 9 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Thomas McCarthy, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
Author: Richard Overy
Subject: Adolf Hitler's Germany compared to and contrasted with Josef Stalin's Soviet Union
Genre: History / Nonfiction / Biography
Publisher: Konecky & Konecky
The Dictators is 849 pages of solid information and facts; fortunately, for the reader's sake, about 200 pages of that is bibliography, notes and index. The text is actually 651 pages, still a substantial read.
For those who love history, especially history surrounding World War II, this is a must-read. Since I was a child, I've been fascinated with the world situation leading up to and including the second World War, and especially these two dictatorships, and I've read dozens of books on the subject, including The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (William L. Shirer) and most of Winston Churchill's six volume series, The Second World War.
But none of those focused on both of World War II's major dictators, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. This book does exactly that, comparing and contrasting each detail of their unique places in history. The authors draws from thousands of historical documents, old Nazi and Soviet files, letters, interviews, court transcripts, diaries, speeches, and many other sources to compile this massive book.
Overy starts in a natural place, the rise to power, noting the many similarities of these two men and their paths to dictatorship, as well as their differences. He also notes the unique situation of both the German nation and the newly formed Soviet Union that allowed these men to rise to their places in history.
Also covered are the political and historical philosophies of Hitler and Stalin, and what they believed about the world and how it should be ruled, as well as how they maintained and tested the limits of their power.
"They were exceptional rulers, exerting a form of direct, customary authority based on widespread popular acclamation that was unique in the history of both countries, before or since; and the two dictators saw themselves as exceptional, called to perform a historic task in times of crisis."
Overy's third chapter looks in-depth at perhaps the most important aspect of these dictatorships, the Cults of Personality that allowed them to gain and maintain control.
Other chapters include The Party State, States of Terror, Constructing Utopia, Commanding the Economy, Military Superpowers, Total War, Nations and Races, and Empire of the Camps.
Throughout this historical work, Overy constantly points at the nearly unbelievable number of people imprisoned and/or put to death under these two regimes, leading the reader through the abhorrent beginnings of the concentration and labor camps in both nations, to their natural and disgusting conclusions.
Though Overy does not insert his own opinions or draw moral or political conclusions in the text, it will be easy for the reader to do so. The stark facts behind all of this are that both leaders were elected by legal processes in their respective nations, and both were widely popular when they took power. In this sense, the story is a flat-out warning to peoples of today's nations to maintain and fight for the freedoms that currently exist, because they can easily be wiped away when the wrong people come to power.
This is at least the 18th movie based on Charles Dickens' novella, written in 1843. It's the third one by Disney in 26 years. Did we really need another one?
Probably not, and that's the only reason I couldn't rate this one higher than 8 out of 10 on my personal scale. Looking at the new film on its own merits, though, it's pretty darn good.
2009's "A Christmas Carol" sticks pretty close to Dickens' story. In fact, more than most films by the same name, this one felt accurate and honed in on the original characters more than expected. Some of the dialogue is pulled straight from the pages of the acclaimed British writer.
The plot, as you may know, centers around bitter old money-changer and miser Ebeneezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey), who is visited by four ghosts in the night, leading him through a profound personal catharsis that changes his life.
Carrey also plays three of the ghosts, and Gary Oldman took on the role of Jacob Marley's ghost, as well as Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
The movie is billed as "animated," but was actually filmed using the process of "performance capture," using live human models for the acion, with a digital overlay added later. Director Robert Zemeckis has also used this process for other films, like Beowulf (2007) and Polar Express (2004).
The scenes of Victorian-era London in winter are delightfully accurate and detailed, and scenes where the camera moves through the city in 3-D are eye-popping. In fact, in the 3-D version of this film, every scene is textured so well that the viewer feels fully immersed.
As I mentioned above, I took points off for re-making an overmade movie. Is it just me, or is about half of Hollywood's current output simply a re-heated version of some other movie?
I also took points off because it's not quite as kid-friendly as the advertisements would lead you to believe, mostly because the writers stuck so closely to Dickens' out-dated English, but also because some parts are pretty darn scary.
Conclusion:
I haven't seen the non-3D version of this movie, so I can't recommend that. But in 3-D this movie is very fun, and certainly worth a watch. Even kids can enjoy the action scenes and Carrey's physical comedy, though they'll likely miss much of the dialogue.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: A Christmas Carol
Wikipedia: A Christmas Carol
Rating: PG
(for scary sequences and images)
Length: 96 min. (1:36)
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Genre: animation / drama / family
My Rating: 8 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Cary Elwes, Robin Wright Penn, Steve Valentine, Daryl Sabara, Sage Ryan, Ryan Ochoa
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
