Iron Man (2008)

Having seen this on many occasions, "Iron Man" holds a soft spot in my heart. It's still, in many ways, the standard to which I hold all other superhero movies in terms of humor, action, plot, believable (ha) conflict between hero and villain, and fun. Marvel is at its best when the films don't take themselves ~too seriously. What's the point of a billionaire building himself a race-car-colored suit that can fly and shoot people if it's not going to be fun?

I did not grow up knowing Marvel characters. Though their names were household, I knew nothing about their stories. While the Spider-Man and X-Men movies sparked an interest, it was really the MCU that reeled me, and many others, into the universe. Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" is the first film released from the MCU and this begs the question: where would Marvel be without such a knockout first film? It's the perfect springboard to the MCU's grand scheme of creating more than just a few superhero movies - but an entire universe of intertwining stories. Had it even launched with "The Incredible Hulk" (released just a month later) then I don't think audiences would be as captivated.

But "Iron Man" was special. It brought a trendy spark to a genre that can so often feel monosyllabic. Of course, this is all due to Robert Downey Jr., whose career came back from the literal dead with his knockout portrayal of billionaire philanthropist Tony Stark. He brings a charisma to the role that is charming, egotistical, self-deprecating, and funny. Not only that, but he is a character you can root for. When Tony Stark emerged from that cave as Iron Man, a born-again man, and saw his outlook change you wanted him to succeed for the good of his own soul, but also for the good of the world. Because while Iron Man is a superhero who can fly in a shiny red suit, more importantly he is a superhero with money and influence.

Watching this film ten years after its release, I am still impressed at the fun technology introduced. Society is, quite frankly, still catching up to the ideal smart technology that Stark Enterprises possesses. If only Siri and Alexa were as intuitive as Jarvis. It is also a refreshing change to see the rich playboy have brains. We watch him learn in the film about the scope of his influence and a little better how to run a business and please investors, but we don't have to watch him learn what he's capable of. He already knows he's smart.

"Iron Man" is also successful in large part to its supporting cast. Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow are all great. It's a shame Howard couldn't come back for more. I still rank Obadiah in my top five favorite MCU villains. He has a menacing yet familiar swagger in this friend to foe villain story. When Pepper is hurriedly trying to figure out Obadiah's secret off his computer, Obadiah startles her in the act of theft. The tension created in that scene from Jeff Bridges' manner of speaking and slow paces to where she is sitting is masterful. Jeff Bridges brings an intimacy to the villain - a quality that is sparse from many subsequent MCU villains.

The cherry on the top is, of course, the infamous ending where Tony Stark reveals that he is, indeed, Iron Man in a press conference. It doesn't seem fitting to call it a twist, but still this remarkably un-cliche moment is also the perfect launching pad to the future of the Avengers. It ~almost brings some realism to bring it that close to home - so close that the film's citizens could read about it in a newspaper. It's brilliant. 9/10

Thor (2011)

My first association with Thor came when I was just a kid. My comic-book loving brother had Marvel characters galore coating his walls and I used to stare at them with no comprehension of who they all really were. The first time I could put a name to a face, though, came from "Adventures in Babysitting" - a classic of our times - while little Sara wore a Thor helmet and mistook a car dealer for her hero.

I remember very well when this movie was released. I was working full-time at my college bookstore. There were two TVs behind our desk that would generally play ads for my school, and the occasional BYU-appropriate trailer. I watched the trailer for "Thor" over a dozen times before I saw it that summer. I pretentiously talked to my coworkers about Kenneth Branagh and how excited I was to see what the distinguished English actor/director of Henry V would bring to the table. I didn't know much then, and I don't know much now but I sure enjoyed pretending to know more about movies than my peers. I remember loving it the first time I saw it and I was very curious to see how the movie would hold up seeing it 6 years later.

Thor is the god of thunder. The son of Odin, king of Asgard, a land somewhere lost in time and space.  Once upon a time, Asgard and the Frost Giants were at war where the blue, snowy creatures wanted dominion over the nine realms, including our blessed Earth. When Asgard blew them over,  the Asgardians took their little ice trophy, the Casket of Ancient Winters.

In the present, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to assume the throne over his adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Those same frozen creatures come and ruin his big day by trying to steal back their casket. Thor throws a whiny tantrum, thinks he’s king already, and decides to take matters into his own hands and starts up some war again with their frosty neighbors. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) realizes that Thor is acting like a child and unfit for the throne. So Thor is banished to Earth without powers or the ability to wield his hammer. Things get worse upstairs when Odin has some kind of stressed-induced heart attack and falls into his get-better “Odinsleep.” Loki takes over as king and he wants to run things a little differently. Thor meets a woman, is confronted with war again and must face his brother to save everyone from war. Or something.

This story is passable, but I don't think it's terribly strong.

It is not an easy task to melange with Norse mythology - if only because the characters are inherently uninteresting. Thor has no notable personality traits and it seems like a stretch for this distant war to come to such a front in rural New Mexico. It also seems unlikely that Thor would magically grow up and turn into a suitable king over night because he met some ~nice people and a pretty lady. I can see what they were going for, but I'm not convinced. Maybe I'm just not buying the changed-by-a-woman-I-just-met-yesterday plot device any longer. Hemsworth brings a sort of suave charm to the character that is delightful, but it feels like something is lacking in the middle in order for us to appreciate the leader he becomes.

Loki, on the other hand, was the best developed out of anyone else in the ensemble. His disturbed countenance and spark of evil are well portrayed by Hiddleston, and his deep confusion and eagerness to please no matter the cost are tragically relatable. He's compelling because of the evident inner sadness that any sibling living in shadow can understand. 

With time has brought age to the CGI and no it isn't like cheese or wine. 6 years doesn't sit well with a land exclusively built in developing technology. Asgard - while well designed and well thought-out - looks now like a video game tutorial with the audience searching for Mario to cross the treacherous Rainbow Road. It has the air of a heavenly setting, but it looks like something I would see in Hyrule, not in Norse mythology.

While the fish out of water story isn't new by any means, I do find myself highly entertained watching Chris Hemsworth down like 20 pop tarts. This whole section of the movie is fun and light and brought the best moments for the popcorn. The lovely Natalie Portman plays the storm-chasing researcher Jane Foster and she's fine, as always. I quite liked her, even if their romance feels contrived.

We’ve also got things to get us more pumped for "The Avengers"  – Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) plays a bigger role than in previous Avenger-precursors. S.H.I.E.L.D. is all over the place trying to figure out that damn hammer, stuck in the ground like Excalibur. The intrigue ever-builds for the mega-mashup coming the following year and watching these again later does lose some of that edge, but it's an entertaining film nonetheless.

6/10

Hugo (2011)

I remember hearing that Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Departed) was directing a movie called Hugo, rated PG. To say I was skeptical was an understatement. Exiting the theater, however, I had the distinct feeling that I now understood the gangster director better than I ever did watching Gangs of New York. Among many other things, Hugo's magic is found in the apparent affection Scorsese had for this creation.

The story follows a boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield). The 12-year-old orphan is depicted in tattered clothes, disheveled hair and a perpetually dirty nose. Following after his late father (Jude Law), he runs the clocks in the railway station - though to do so while avoiding the station's constable (Sacha Baren Cohen), intent on sending him to the orphanage, is not easy. He doesn't say much at first, but his eyes tell a story of their own. His passion lies in the old automaton that his father left him and he stresses and thieves to get it working again. With the help of his new friend Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz, straight outta Kickass), they fix the automaton just enough for it to draw them a picture - a picture that leads them back to the famed film director Georges Melies.

It's based off the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. By itself, the story is lovely, but it's even more magical when seeing it connect to Scorsese on a personal level. In an interview, Scorsese has said that he identified with the young Hugo's lonely voyeuristic upbringing. As a young boy, Scorsese was very ill with asthma and spent much of his time indoors at the movie theater. In many a sense, it's semi-autobiographical. But Scorsese isn't just Hugo, he's also Melies. An inventor and filmmaker, Melies was instrumental in early film and in special effects. Small films like A Trip to the Moon and The Impossible Voyage are still remarkable and iconic. Scorsese filmed this film in 3D and it's beautiful. The opening shot zooming over Paris is striking, bright, and impressively detailed. 

This is largely a movie about movies. What film lover doesn't love that? Hugo's sad eyes light up when he goes to the pictures. The dawning of the cinematic world is unfolded before the children's eyes (and our own). It celebrates movies by reflecting back on where we've been and paying tribute to those we owe so much. It paints a beautiful picture of the power that film has on us. Because through movies, we can see our dreams. 

Beyond that, the story itself is deeply emotional. Sir Ben Kingsley plays Monsieur Melies himself. There are some incredibly touching scenes of him lamenting the loss of his work and the decline of his career. He cries at the thought of his films being melted and destroyed and his life's work unseen and unappreciated. These scenes are some of the best in the film.

All the elements blend together for a perfect love letter to the movies we all love and hold dear. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz model our own discovery and longing for adventure while we get to learn about the story played by the veteran actors. Beside Kingsley, Christopher Lee delivers an exemplary supporting performance.

Despite its PG rating, it appeals more to adults in a family friendly way. I can't say I would have appreciated it as much as a child than I do as an adult. Either way it's wonderful to see this other side of Martin Scorsese through this beautiful tale. 9/10

Stand By Me (1986)

"Do you guys want to go see a dead body?" Everyone stopped. It's the summer of 1959 in Castlerock, Oregon and a local boy has gone missing. 12-year-old Vern (Jerry O'Donnell), overweight, timid and bullied, approaches his three friends Gordie, Chris, and Teddy with the proposal for the ultimate summer adventure to find the body and collect the reward. Rob Reiner's adaptation of Stephen King's novella "The Body" exquisitely captures the vulnerability of youth and the heart of true friendship in this simple yet sweeping story.

This troubled but carefree band of brothers rely on each other through summer days with contraband cigarettes in their treehouse for a home. Our narrator Gordie (Wil Wheaton) is coping after the recent death of his older brother and subsequent neglect at home. Teddy (Corey Feldman) nearly had his ear burned off by his father who is now confined to a mental institution. Chris (River Phoenix) is beaten by his alcoholic dad and regularly stereotyped as a criminal. These boys are there for each other through the deep stuff that troubles youth but doesn't screw them up enough to ruin summer fun just yet. They set off with backpacks, Cokes, and Converse shoes and through episodes with leeches in the river, close calls with trains, and quintessential stories by the campfire, these boys are brought closer together like nothing but shared experience of searching for a dead body can. This is more than band camp.

Everything is just so incredibly real. These kids are at the bridge between boyhood and maturation. They talk about the greater issues of life, "Hey guys! What animal IS Goofy anyway?""You think Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman?" in the poignant campfire scene. But though they laugh at the hysterical tale of "Lardass" anyone can see that the true issues of family instability and uncertain futures plague over them. I've never been a 12-year-old boy, but I can still relate to many of their pre-teen ideals. I remember what it was like to bury real pain and shake off real issues with fantasy games with my friends. (On that note - why is that that there are no stories about groups of girls? Just a thought).

River Phoenix has never acted this great, and the scene between Chris and Gordie stands as a defining moment not just for the climax of the movie, but for all of childhood. Maybe you didn't have a friend like that, but you certainly wanted one. He is the rock of the group and knows how to calm fears and invoke courage in one conversation. The heart of this movie are the characters and Reiner nailed it with his acting picks. These kids can handle heavy scenes like pros. Will Wheaton's delivery is neither forced nor contrived but is still deliberate and emotional. His excellent acting is coupled with one of Kiefer Sutherland's better performances as the local bully, Ace. 

Ace: "What are you gonna do? Shoot us all?"

Gordie: "No, Ace. Just you."

With characters we can fall in love with, a script that is sharp, raw, & realistic, and cameos from Richard Dreyfuss and John Cusack you have yourself a movie that will stay with you. Honestly, I don't know what it is about it that gets me every time. It's been nearly six years since I saw it for the first time and there is something timeless about it that touches me and has resonated with me. Maybe it's the nostalgic music. Maybe it's because it reminds me of summer. Stand By Me can rest with the likes of To Kill a Mockingbird and The Man in the Moon as one of the greatest and most timeless coming of age stories around. I am a sucker for these poignant stories bc THE FEELS. And every time I watch it, I am reminded of the friends with whom I've shared something. 9/10

"I never had any friends later on like the ones when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?" 

Star Trek (2009)

Turned on Star Trek the original 1979 movie. And then I remembered I was a Star Wars girl and turned it off.
— Lauren Smith (@lauren_smith_17) April 8, 2014

I am a Star Wars girl. It's true. It's also true that I haven't yet been able to bring myself to watch the other Star Trek movies. I thought it was against some sort of nerd-code to like both. You know? Anyone else with me on this? Apparently you can like both. I just haven't quite made it to that level yet.

That being said, these new movies are the shiz. Do I think it's a LITTLE weird that JJ Abrams is doing both Star Wars AND Star Trek? Yes. It's kind of weird. And a little traitorous (the nerd-code thing). But he made Star Trek 4000 times cooler by turning it into Star Wars! Does that mean that next year when Star Wars Episode VII comes out it will be morphed into the Star Trek realm a little? Perhaps. We'll get there when we get there. 

But for the meantime, I will enjoy these movies.

All I knew about the 'verse before I saw this a few years back was some stuff about Captain Kirk, the Enterprise, and Spock, of course. And, like, William Shatner. And stuff from Galaxy Quest. So take that knowledge, and throw it all through an awesome time travel loop and you got my experience with Star Trek. 

This story starts on the day our beloved James Tiberius Kirk was born, the same day his hero father is martyred saving his all-star crew from some time traveling alien bastards in search of Ambassador Spock. Who is also just a little dude. Irrelevant. The bulk of the story takes place 25 years later and Kirk has grown up (played by Chris Pine), but still a younger, more brash, rebellious version than the Kirk most fans are used to. See this whole time-traveling thing works out great because we get to enjoy younger, more attractive versions of the usual Enterprise crew-members who essentially feed off their older selves. Kirk, Spock (Zachary Quinto), Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Scotty (Simon Pegg) make up that crew, and they go through their growing pains with each other. When Spock meets his future self (played by Leonard Nimoy) he is shocked to hear that in this alternate all-too-familiar universe of original Spock & Kirk, he and Captain Kirk were best friends. Ultimately, the young crew, combat those same time-traveling alien bastards that killed Papa Kirk.

Besides all the cool time travel stuff (which, frankly, I'm super into), what gets me with this film is the characters and their interaction aboard the maiden voyage of the Enterprise. It being an origin story, we learn very interesting details about Kirk and Spock. Jim T's father made history in his battle against the nefarious Nero (awesomely hard-to-recognizely played by Eric Bana) and left Kirk with that legacy's shadow to hide from. He's convinced by Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to join Starfleet, but his rebellious hot rod attitude inevitably clashes with straight-nosed half-Vulcan/half-human Spock. Spock is thoughtfully played by Zachary Quinto. He has a troubling background and goes through some serious emotional turmoil when his planet is blown up in front of him - Alderaan style. Spock is in a constant battle between his natural Vulcan instinct to be un-emotional and to proceed business as usual with his human side fighting from deep within to explode. Quinto's performance delivers something special: he stays true to character yet delivers every line and every gesture with subdued emotion and the feeling that something hot is boiling underneath his calm exterior.

If you're going to do a reboot - especially a reboot of a series so massive and with so many dedicated followers - this is the way to do it. Abrams goes back to the beginning (who doesn't love origin stories?) he brings out familiar characters but gives them a new twist, and he delivers everything with top-notch special effects, a clever story, great action sequences, and a good script to boot. If I knew more about science, I'm sure I'd be able to hate along with the rest of you on the actual implications of black holes and whatever. If I knew more about Star Trek in general, I might be able to do some hating that I'm sure I'll be throwing around when the new Star Wars comes out. But even long-timers can't hate on that new and improved Enterprise. It's beautiful. When it comes down to it, if we're talking about spectacle, 2009's Star Trek has got it. 8/10

Oblivion (2013)

The year is 2077. It's very interesting to me how these dystopian post-apocalyptic films want us to feel uncomfortable by always choosing a year that's not so far in the future. Why not 2248? Why not 2301? No, filmmakers want us to connect. They want us to feel ownership of our mother earth. 2077, this is us and our children we're talking about, here. We're nervous and uncomfortable because the 2077 Earth is much different than the earth we all know and love. It's an earth that's covered more with radioactive waste than it is people after a bunch of alien scavengers attacked it and strip it of its resources. 

Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) (why is EVERYONE named Jack?) is one of the last remaining people around. He chills in his little floating house in the sky with his working partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) while he repairs drones (little robot dudes) and gathers more resources from the planet. He is part of a massive operation to help prepare the way for the rest of Earth's population to make it to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. His memory has been wiped of the tragic war, and he's got questions with no answers. He doesn't go prying too far, though, until he finds a crashed spaceship with human survivors and he realizes that nothing can be taken at face value.

Oblivion is a fun film. It is a visual, sensational treat. I watched this cold turkey and please, if you're into sci-fi stuff, and if you've never heard of this before like I hadn't, then don't read this and go watch that instead. It's a good film experience. Then come back and we can talk about it some more. And if you've never seen Blade Runner, 2001: a Space Odyssey, I Am Legend, Prometheus, Wall-E, Minority Report, District 9 or especially Moon (I could keep going), then you'll probably leave thinking this is the greatest sci-fi film ever made. But... really, you should probably watch those first.

That being said, there will be spoilers.

So yeah, it's fun. But I found myself wondering the whole time whether all of this was going to come together or if any of it was going to make any sense and if I was ever going to care about any of it making sense. It's all surface. It's all superficial.

Let's talk about the plot: it's a good idea. It's a really good idea that Joseph Kosinski (TRON: Legacy) is executing for a great sci-fi film however let's be real, it's 2001 and we all KNEW the second there was an alien or robot or drone or whatever it's called we all knew that it was Hal 9000, red light and everything. Of course the aliens were the enemy! All of this Jack memory loss bull was a red herring that anyone with half a lick of sci-fi knowledge could pick out. All of the big reveals, all of the twists were predictable as anything. Yes, the alien is the enemy. Yes, Jack isn't who he thinks he is and there's a much bigger thing going down here. Yes, the Russian is his wife. I mean, he finds this random chick who's been asleep for 60 years, obviously she's important to the story I mean he was DREAMING about her. We're supposed to be surprised she's his wife? 

My other big complaint has to do with character. Granted, it's probably part of the plot and Jack's character concept that we don't relate to him or feel any connection to him at all. He's, like, a clone and stuff. (Though if you watch Moon, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Kids, just watch Moon, it's way better). But all of the characters were wooden. They could have all been clones, it was really hard to tell the difference. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters at all. The golden opportunity for contrast and emotional involvement is wasted when we are introduced to a bunch of human survivors on Earth. I think of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) and the masterful contraposition illustrated when we go to the big bad real world. It's in those transitional moments that we feel connected to the characters and understand where the plot is headed. In Oblivion, even when they were being killed by drones, I felt nothing. I didn't connect with Morgan Freeman, I didn't even connect with the wife with Julia (Olga Kurylenko) or whatever her name is. I mean, Jack's a clone, but Julia's human! You'd think that she'd have some sort of emotional response, something to SAY at least when she finally sees her husband after 60 years in cyber sleep.

However, the visuals are absolutely breath taking. I was taken in and completely captivated by the beauty - I feel like everything was made by Apple. The camerawork, lighting, and first 12 minutes of the film were completely incredible, and those were all big pluses. Also, M83's music was pretty sweet. Claudio Miranda won the Academy Award for cinematography for Life of Pi (2012) and it's clear that he's the man who takes our breath away. I just wish there was some heart below the beautiful surface that we could connect with and wish to come back for more. But when all acting is wooden, and when there are way too many plot holes, and when it rips off some of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, I must say my patience was tried. And for reals, the movie is too long! 4/10