"About Time" To Write Again

It has been a long time since I have written.  I have been off of Facebook, and, in general, have been amazed at how little that decision has changed my life.  If anything, it has made my day to day existence a little more peaceful.  At the same time, something inside of me still wants to write about movies and that same feeling wants to share my thoughts with as many people as possible.  One of the mediums that makes that possible is Facebook, so I guess I will reenter that world.

The movie that brings me back is "About Time."  This is a movie that was directed by Richard Curtis, who either wrote or directed some of the finest romantic comedies I can bring to mind ("Notting Hill", "Love Actually", "Four Weddings and A Funeral").  It does something I have never seen before in a romantic comedy.  It never presents a significant obstacle toward its principals getting together.  Instead, the story is more existential.  It wants to make greater points about the nature of life, in all of its joys and heartbreaks.

The movie follows a young man named Tim (Domhnall Gleeson).  As Tim turns 21, his father (Bill Nighy) informs him that the men in the family all have the ability to travel back in time to events in their own life.  Of course, Tim is doubtful at first, but quickly learns that he does indeed have this unusual ability.  He uses this talent to woo the woman of his dreams (Rachel McAdams), and settles into his life.  Only after that does he begin to become aware of how complicated life can be.  Crises emerge in his life, and he comes to realize, for various reasons, that his talent cannot fix much of anything.  Instead, he is left with a big question as to what he will do with this talent.

This is a great movie to watch as one returns from vacation.  I am returning to work today after being gone for 2 weeks.  One of the universally applicable messages of this movie is to embrace each day with all of its ups and downs.  This is a valuable message to people like me, who see work as something of a distraction from time with my family.  One valuable thing that Tim does in this movie is commit to live days twice.  In so doing, he is able to "redo" a day that was not a good one.  When he takes the time to redo his day, he sees many of the small joys of life that he had missed the first time around.  At the end of the day the second time, he is able to see what a great day he truly had, and how much he had missed that the first time around.

Richard Curtis has made some great movies with some great universal themes.  His characters clearly have different lives and different beliefs than I do, but his stories tap into some of the things that are true for all of us.  Each day does indeed have so much joy and glory to it.  I miss so much of that as I get bogged down in stress and the everyday grind.  True, there are some days none of us would ever want to live again (if we're sane), but most days have a lot to offer if we simply give them a chance.  I also love how this movie depicts the life together of two people who marry, have a family, and who truly love and like each other.  So many romantic comedies are either about the hunt for or the dissolution of relationships.  This story shows us a somewhat healthy relationship, and some of the true pleasure and joy that such a relationship can bring.

My wife Stephanie and I watched this movie on the plane back from LA, and we watched it again a couple of days later at home.  We both loved it, partly because we both feel that good romantic comedies are very hard to find.  As with other Curtis movies, there are wonderful, quirky minor characters, as well as a story that wears its heart on its sleeve.  He is able to balance cynicism and sentimentality quite well.  As I reenter the work force today, I would do well to let the lessons from this movie and (more importantly) the lessons from my faith go with me.

Movie Trivia Answers

Sorry this is late...the winner was my friend John from SoCal, who not only one, but got a perfect score of 25, answering every question correctly and guessing the connection.  Hats off to John!

Here are the quotes with the answers...the connection is that all of the quotes come from Steven Spielberg films...

1. "We're going to need a bigger boat" – Roy Scheider Jaws

2. "The list is life." Ben Kingsley Schindler’s List

3. "Give us free..." Djimon Honsou Amistad

4. "I'm keeping him..." Henry Thomas E.T.

5. "Bad form!!!' Dustin Hoffman Hook

6. "It's not the age, it's the mileage." Harrison Ford Raiders of the Lost Ark

7. "He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer lasting light bulb."
Tom Hanks Saving Private Ryan

8. "You know why the Yankees always win? 'Cause the other teams can't stop looking at those damn pinstripes!" Christopher Walken Catch Me if You Can

9. "Your scientists we're so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park

10. "This means something. This is important." Richard Dreyfuss Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Movie quote contest: Connections

 Let's have some summer fun.  Here are ten movie quotes.  They have a specific connection.  The name of the movie that the quote comes from will be worth one point, and the name of the actor or actress who spoke the line is worth 1 point.  The connection is worth 5 points.  Please e-mail your answers to losbascoms@mac.com...DO NOT PUT YOUR ANSWERS IN THE COMMENTS, OR OTHERS WILL SEE THEM...I WILL HAVE TO DELETE THEM.

Prize for the winner to be determined.  The contest will run until July 25 at 10PM Central Time.  Good luck!


1. "We're going to need a bigger boat"

2. "The list is life."

3.  "Give us free..."

4.  "I'm keeping him..."

5.  "Bad form!!!'

6.  "It's not the age, it's the mileage."

7.  "He better be worth it.  He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer lasting light bulb."

8.  "You know why the Yankees always win?  'Cause the other teams can't stop looking at those damn pinstripes!"

9.  "Your scientists we're so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

10.  "This means something.  This is important."

Man Of Steel

Maybe this is because I was so young when I first saw it, but I have always measured every comic book film I have ever seen against Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie", wherein Christopher Reeve played the famous superhero from Krypton.  The reason I still feel this way is that version was able to perfectly balance the fun and seriousness that came with the territory.  Reeve's Superman is able to be at once funny and serious, and the movie could be both a lark and an epic.  The other crucial element to that film was Gene Hackman's perfectly executed Lex Luthor.  His Luthor is hell bent on both world domination and on the perfect burn to his idiot side kicks.  Having said that, "Man of Steel", does not measure up to Donner's version.  There are lots of reasons why this is, but even with that in mind, this movie has a lot to bring to the Superman mythology.  It is a great summer popcorn movie.

The plot is well known by now.  Jor-el (Russell Crowe) is a scientist on the doomed planet of Krypton.  He and his wife have just brought a baby son into the world named Kal-el, and they devise a way to get him off the planet before their planet implodes.  At the same time, military traitor General Zod has been convicted of treason and been placed with his cohorts into the Phantom Zone (a comic book version of suspended animation).  Since Zod also is off the planet, he vows to Kal-el's mother that he will seek and find Kal-el and exact his revenge upon his old nemesis Jor-el, whom he has murdered.  (On a side note, why didn't Jor-el just leave Zod in jail on the planet to be blown to bits with the rest of the planet?  Nitpicking, I know).

Kal-el is found on earth by Jonathon and Martha Kent, and brought up as their own son.  He ends up growing up knowing he is different, and his schoolmates think of him as a freak.  His father Jonathon (Kevin Costner, in a role perfectly suited for him), advises him to not use his extraordinary powers-powers that he has from his Kryptonian body on earth.  As Kal-el (whom his earth parents name Clark) grows, he finds it increasingly difficult to hide his powers from others, particularly at times when he is bullied, or at times when people around him are in trouble.  As a young man, Clark/Kal-el ends up shuttling around doing odd jobs here and there.  He always ends up having to leave due to some feat of strength he performs, which in turn forces him to hide again.  Eventually, when an alien craft is discovered at the arctic, Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane begins researching this man who has done incredible things, and the trail reaches Clark.  Just as this happens, General Zod arrives at earth to seek his revenge, and the great showdown between Zod and Kal-el begins.

There is a lot about this movie to admire.  The "fish out of water" syndrome (complete with Christ imagery without any nuance) is played very well in this film.  In the end, the human (or Kryptonian) element is the movie's strongest point.  The film does a wonderful job of depicting how difficult it would be to be in the situation Clark is in, but it also shows how hard it would be for others as well (his parents, his classmates, etc.).  The movie also plays some great new angles on the mythology that I hadn't seen before, particularly involving the interaction between Clark and Lois Lane.  The performances of all the actors are great.  Henry Cavill brings a great inner strength and sensitivity to Kal-el.  Amy Adams proves here that she can make even the most canned dialogue sound great.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are both note perfect as Superman's adoptive parents.  The other bit roles are also well played, though I could have used some more humor in the dialogue for Laurence Fishburne's Perry White (Fishburne is great, but his dialogue needed to lighten his character up a bit).  Russell Crowe brings a healthy dose of gravitas to Jor-el.

I had two problems with the movie.  I felt that Michael Shannon's performance as General Zod was fine, but that the character itself lacked the kind of depth we saw in the Terence Stamp version, or the depth we found in Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.  The villain in comic book movies is key, and here, I felt more of a caricature than a real substance in the Zod character.  The second problem I had was that after a very strong first 2/3 of the movie, most of the last 1/3 is tedious fighting.  A lot of punches are thrown, and while watching the two Kryptonians hurtle through corn fields looked impressive, the fighting went on too long and got boring to me.  I think that the way the film ended sets the franchise up very well, and I hope that this movie does well enough to be able to build on the strengths of this movie and leave behind some of the tedium.

All in all, this movie could be a great restart to this franchise after the tedious and boring "Superman Returns" of 2006.  What I hope is that the makers of the sequel build on the characters more and use elaborate visual effects to bolster characters and story.  This movie has a lot to chew on, and the viewer can tell that Christopher Nolan's (the director of all three masterful Batman movies of the last 10 years) fingerprints are on this movie.  But, the substance and grappling he brought to the Dark Knight films outshone what happens in this movie.  Here's hoping that this movie is only the beginning of great things.  But even if it isn't, get ready for a good time at the movies!

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I mentioned this in a recent post (so forgive the repetition if you read that but) but the last time I saw a JJ Abrams "Star Trek" movie for the first time, I had my dad sitting next to me.  So, as the theater dimmed earlier today, I looked to my right to see an empty chair, and remembered dad.  Little did I know that many of the images I would see over the next 2 hours would do even more to remind me of my dad and some of the movie memories I shared with him.  This movie (especially its second half) is jammed with wonderful homages to the original Star Trek series, but everything is written well enough that it would take nothing away from the enjoyment of the movie if the viewer knows nothing about Star Trek.  JJ Abrams and company are doing wonderful things with this franchise, and since they are not bound by the canon of the original series (due to sci-fi reasons :) ), the possibilities of what they can do with this series are endless.  To watch this movie was a wonderful flashback to my childhood, but also a totally original experience.  I will attempt to be free from spoilers, but I will say, there is a lot to spoil, so read with caution.

The movie begins with events that end up leaving Kirk without the command of the Enterprise.  This event coincides with a bombing of a Starfleet archive in London.  The man who ends up being behind the bombing is John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch).  The bombing prompts Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to call a special session with all of the Captains and First Officers of the fleet present.  Harrison, assuming this meeting would take place, then attacks that meeting, and kills Kirk's mentor.  Kirk is then reinstated as Captain of the Enterprise, and Spock is reinstated as First Officer.  Harrison had escaped after his attack to a far off planet, and Kirk is given the task to hunt down and kill Harrison by Admiral Marcus.  Things take a surprising turn, however, when Kirk captures Harrison rather than killing him, and the story really takes off from there.

JJ Abrams is this generation's Steven Spielberg.  He is making movies that are at once entertaining, engaging, and have mass appeal.  Taking a franchise like Star Trek (which has a large appeal, but a more selective one) and giving it a mass appeal is a tough thing to do, but Abrams has done it with his two "Trek" films.  Since Abrams is now directing the next "Star Wars" movie, he may not be directing more "Trek" films, but the franchise will be the poorer for it.  I can only imagine that the upcoming "Star Wars" sequels have great potential, given the quality of these "Star Trek" films.  Here, he is able to rely on the inherent strengths of the "Star Trek" franchise.  The characters created by Gene Roddenberry almost 50 years ago have always been the strength of this series.  Taking those characters and giving them a good story made for the best of what "Star Trek" has had to offer.  Here, the characters are given a great villain, but also a great story, filled with action that never lets up, and homages to the original series which give the movie great texture.  One of the strengths that Abrams and company bring this new version is how much substance they give to all of the Trek characters.  While Kirk and Spock will always be the central characters of this mythology, Chekhov, Sulu, Scotty, McCoy and Uhura are all given important roles to pay in this epic, and the story is so much stronger because of it.  The other thing which made for some of the best Trek movies and episodes was the villains it gave us.  Here, the villain known initially as John Harrison evokes some of the best villains Trek has ever had to offer.  He is a character of substance, not simply evil incarnate.  He has motivation for what is is doing, in spite of the fact that what he is doing is horribly destructive.

The ending moments of the movie were wonderful in their evocative nature.  The writers of the movie truly did their homework and knew some things that would satisfy Trek fans without bogging the story down in Star Trek minutiae.  They give us familiar images, but in a new context, and the familiarity is what brings us back to these movies.  We all love familiar things, and what Abrams and company have done so masterfully here is gives us something both new and familiar.  This is great mass market movie making, and it makes me very excited to see what Abrams has in store for all of us with the next "Star Wars" movie.

Star Trek (2009)

Today, the sequel to this popular reboot of the "Star Trek" franchise is released in the theaters.  I can't wait to get out and see it.  This week, I decided to watch this 2009 movie again, and really recapture the spirit just in time for the release of the new Star Trek film.  Earlier this week, I recalled here a great moment I had with my dad when I first saw this movie.  Watching it again this week, I thought a lot of him, but I also remembered just how good this movie is.  It is a bold, inventive piece of work that tries to have its cake and eat it too, and pretty much succeeds.

What is meant by the cake remark?  The movie wants to be able to give us many of the same characters and situations that made Star Trek fans love the franchise, but it needs to change it enough so that the films are not simply a retread.  In order to do that, a time travel plot is given to us that gives everyone in the Star Trek universe a brand new destiny.  While the logic of the plot may be a bit suspect (leading the viewer to have to suspend at least some disbelief), it works tremendously well in giving fans familiarity, but keeping it general enough the people who aren't big Star Trek fans can follow the action as well.  One of the many things that works very well is the time travel variable scene itself.  As James T. Kirk's father George is the First Officer of the USS Kelvin, a Romulan renegade named Nero bursts onto the scene out of nowhere and completely changes everyone's destiny in the Star Trek universe.   The main thing that affects Kirk's destiny is that his father dies while he is being born, while in the original Star Trek universe, Kirk grew up with his father.  While everything ends up changing due to these events, the writers of the movie still are able to present characters and situations that are familiar to Trek devotees.  One such event that hearkened back to the original cast that is executed very well is Kirk's taking the "no win scenario" during his days at the academy.  This event was originally discussed in "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan".  It involves a test wherein Starfleet cadets are put in a situation wherein the captain in the simulation is put in a sure death situation and then shows how he will react.  Kirk is taking the test for the third time, but he has reprogrammed the test in order to beat the "no win scenario".  The scene is hilarious in how smug and arrogant Kirk is, and it is one event that happens in both "Trek" worlds, showing a certain constancy to Kirk's bravado, even though so much has changed from the original Trek universe.

While watching this time, it became clear that fans of movies have two things about which to be excited.  First, the new film "Star Trek: Into Darkness" looks to be good, and it has gotten great reviews.  But second, for fans of the "Star Wars" films, it should be remembered the JJ Abrams (the director of both new Trek movies) will be directing the next Star Wars movie.  If he handles the Star Wars franchise as capably as he handled the Trek series, fans have so much to anticipate.  Here, Abrams is able to find the right balance of reverence for the characters with the necessity of giving a fresh vision.  Also, bringing Leornard Nimoy into the movie proves to be a stamp of approval from the original series.  His presence lends a certain Trek gravitas which takes a capable story and launches it into outer space, metaphorically speaking.  Scene after scene is infused with life and creativity.  The slight cockeyed angle of the camera throughout the movie gives lends an element of realism to the vision.  The performances in the movie are also noteworthy.  The cast faced the same daunting task as the writers and director here.  They had to pay tribute to the characters they did not create, but still be able to bring something fresh to each character.  Chris Pine's James T. Kirk has some wonderful homages to William Shatner (witness the scene at the end when he pats Dr. McCoy and the shoulder and proclaims, "Bones, buckle up!"), but is still a different Kirk.  Anton Yelchin's Chekhov is the right blend of substantial character and cheesy caricature it was originally meant to be from the 60's series.  Zachary Qunito's Spock is note perfect, especially as this incarnation of the series' best character adds brand new nuances to the character.  Zoe Saldana's Uhura might be the most important new incarnation in this film.  In the old series, Uhura was important, but sometimes seemed like little more than an intergalactic telephone operator.  Here, the character is given some real substance, and the movie is so much more deep because of that.

The other characters are similarly substantial, which brings us to the ultimate strength of this new version of Trek.  The movie we are watching (though we know it to be a fantasy), is infused with truth and realism.  This kind of storytelling has been on display in movies lately, especially in Christoper Nolan's "Batman" trilogy.  We are seeing a trend of fantasy films which stay within a fantasy world, but are able to seem real, and so the movies touch us in ways other fantasy films don't.  In this movie, the opening minutes never fail to create emotion because they are true to life, even though they are set in outer space.  I am a big fan of all kinds of movies.  Art house movies and indie movies are always interesting for me.  But people like JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan seem to be bringing some real substance to the mulitplex as well, and I am excited to see what is going to come of it next.

Another Dad Movie Memory

As the next Star Trek movie is almost ready to be released in the theaters, I keep thinking up the time I saw JJ Abrams' first installment of his "Star Trek" reboot back in 2009.  My parents were set to come out and visit us in Minnesota that May, and I thought it would be a great idea to wait to see the movie until dad was out on his trip.  We went down to the Mall of America.  I loved the movie, and it was fun to see the movie with him, since I had grown up watching "Star Trek" many nights at the dinner table at our home in Southern California.  The main thing I remember about that day was that when the movie ended, my dad burst into applause all by himself in the movie theater.  The theater wasn't that full as I recall, so his applause was pretty much the only applause in the room.  Needless to say, he liked the movie a lot too.