Midnight Special

I'm sure it will end in a cliffhanger that does not explain anything about some curiosities audience members will definitely ask about, like the supernatural circumstances surrounding the main character and who he really is. In short, it will be an ending that me and a movie-fanatic uncle jokingly refer to as A European Ending. The type where everything ends abruptly without further exposition of things and ditching that spoon-fed scenario where that ever-annoying "What happened in the end" query from less-engaged audience members always ask. Which is totally fine by me. Because judging from the brilliant second trailer I watched repeatedly ever since, those concerns are, to be blunt, trivial and unimportant. At least in the overall scheme of things, or in the context of the whole movie.  While those factors are interesting tools to give spice and propel a good story, they are simply incidental and mere tools that highlight the core of a seemingly sci-fi adventure fare: A family drama. 

Take away the supernatural powers, government conspiracies, and religious cults and it comes down to a simple, but engaging story about a small family's struggle to protect their only child at all costs. And the inevitability of letting go of our loved ones. And it's not like Jeff Nichols broke any new ground in terms of making this type of movie. The director said he made an homage to the kinds of movies he saw growing up in the 80s. Similar themes had already been explored by the likes of ET, Starman, and J.J. Abram's own homage to the genre: Super 8. All had elements of fantasy and sci-fi wizardy and share of its "freaks" who reinforces the bonds of the humans they interact with in one way or another. Midnight Special certainly belongs to this pantheon. Where a young boy with mysterious powers attracts the attention of everyone.

You see a divorced father with his son in tow, escaping from both the government (who think his son is a weapon) and a religious cult (who thinks his son is the messiah) across the US with some hair-raising cat and mouse chase that put everyone's life at risk, with a few glimpses of the boy's power every now and then. As played by Michael Shannon, the father takes a desperate race against odds that are increasingly going against him to take his gifted/cursed son to a predetermined site chosen by the boy. Will it save him? Kill him? All of the above? Those questions are---while significant---hardly important.
 
What we have instead is a gripping synopsis on the type of futile struggle every parent must do to shelter their children from whatever impossible threat that comes along. Be it the external forces like the ones given in the film or the very nature of the child himself that hinges on self-destruction any given second. It's all these and more until the end where the only question that matters is the one only a parent will ask.

Men of steel and titans of metal

Been a while since I posted anything here so might as well talk about the two movies I really loved so far this year.

MAN OF STEEL

More of a reaction to the negative feedback of most viewers/critics whose rallying cry was that the thing was "too dark" and---my favorite--- that "Superman doesn't kill". Wonder if those same people had the same sentiment about issue #75 of the comics where the Man Of Steel met his "demise" in the hands of Doomsday. I'm sure that titanic face-off between the two ridiculously superpowered beings didn't produce any casualty at all. Just buildings and other inanimate objects because it would have been too dark a tone for the Norman Rockwell-esque world the blue boy scout lives in. Or that Superman has no intention of killing someone whose threat level is insane because, well, he doesn't kill. I'm sure that final blow he gave to that character was meant to only "stun" him.

I don't know. Maybe these chronic complainers have a better solution to that Zod-Superman smackdown that does not involve desperate, last minute solutions like snapping your opponent's neck to prevent him from killing some more. And that the character who did the killing was a first-timer at this kind of business. 

As for the "critical" mass who apparently found the violence and "lack of humor"  so off-putting, well tough luck gentlemen, sometimes genre entries like this revolve more around actual action than subtle artistic metaphors on life and deep meditations on existence. Snyder's unfairly lumped into the Michael Bay category of all flash and mindless mayhem devoid of good stories that may in fact be grounded on something---except that David Goyer and the Nolans are behind the writing that any more comparison with the former is far-fetched. This film was simply a reaction to the Singer-directed Superman Returns that managed to stoke the critics but left a stale taste on the mouth of most its target audience, including myself.

Donner's version is fine, but it's time for another take on things.


PACIFIC RIM

Best movie of the year. If only for the sheer ambition of making a big-screen tribute to those 
Japanese mecha/kaiju anime and manga that gained popularity during the 70s and 80s. I was a huge fan of Voltron, Daimos and Voltes V when these shows aired on free TV. And watching Guillermo Del Toro's fanboy output of giant robots bludgeoning giant monsters with makeshift weapons like a massive ship, that elation you had as a kid jumping out the sofa mimicking those cartoon robots as they administer their brand of justice to those giant invading monsters with extreme prejudice---comes back. Del Toro obviously made something he wanted to see as a fan, and that translated very well on the big screen. 

This obviously won't be winning any awards for best picture but this is clearly the best picture of the year. You advertise robots beating monsters to a pulp and live up to it. 

In this aspect Pacific Rim lives up to its promise.

A long time ago...in a geek convention far far away

I consider myself a true Star Wars fan.

Although I'm not a total dweeb who flaunts his geekdom by flooding the house with anything from C-3PO and R2-D2 lunchboxes to those uber-expensive 'realistic' lightsaber toys and whine and moan at what George Lucas did to my beloved series by butchering what was left of it. Nor will you find me in forums arguing with other hardcore fans as to why Jar-Jar Binks's presence in Episode 1 isn't all that putrid; or why Han Solo, and not Boba Fett, is the coolest character to have come out of that universe. I look at it the way I look at other films I admire. Just a movie, and not a blueprint on how to live your own life. I'm constantly amazed at the passion some fans show every time I come across anything on the net that is remotely attached to the series. You'd even read arguments that give an impression that if the two debaters see each other in person, they'll go after each other's throats with extreme prejudice. Fascinating really, considering what they're arguing about to the point of threatening old testament-style wrath to each other is only the figment of one man's imagination. 

A typical scholarly debate on a certain topic:

JediMasterKen: COUNT DOOKU CAN'T BEAT DARTH MAUL EVEN IF HE MASTERED MAKASHI (FORM II) TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE. MAUL HAS MORE EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER SITH MARTIAL ARTS LIKE JAR-KAI. NOT TO MENTION HE'S ALSO YOUNGER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE.

Darth Bored: I DISAGREE. MAKASHI REQUIRES INTENSE CONCENTRATION AND FOCUSED ATTUNEMENT TO THE FORCE. NOT TO MENTION HE WAS ALREADY A FORMIDABLE JEDI LIGHTSABER DUELIST BEFORE HE WAS EVEN A SITH LORD. DARTH SIDIOUS DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO TEACH HIM ADVANCED LIGHTSABER TECHNIQUES BECAUSE HE ALREADY KNEW TYRANUS(DOOKU) WAS ONE OF THE UNIVERSE'S BEST SWORDSMAN. HE WAS SO GOOD HE DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO RELY ON THE FORCE WHEN HE ENGAGED IN LIGHTSABER COMBAT. REMEMBER MAUL LOST TO AN APPRENTICE (OBI-WAN).

I don't think I need to show where this conversation leads to. Arguments like these can be compared to a religious or political debate. It's an argument with no end. Nobody wants to back down. And when all logic, fact, and reason fails, everyone resorts to personal attacks.

But what really amazes me about it is where the hell did these people get that kind of information? Fanficition maybe, but to speak about it like it was as real as describing how the flushing mechanism in the toilet bowl works is a bit unnerving. I'm sure it wasn't discussed in the movie, and I was also pretty sure that Maul could kick Dooku's ass based from what I saw, but upon seeing the other guy's very enlightening exposition, I was impressed. 

Do people like these really take the movie THAT seriously? Although you'd also hear these kind of heated arguments from LOTR or D&D fans, it is not as attention-grabbing because you know the so-called facts they throw at each other were taken from books and novels. What separates Star Wars though, is that it was a movie before some materials of it were adapted in book form (most are children's storybooks and novelization of the series), and that the movies didn't even cover half of what the two geniuses above are arguing about.

I have complaints about the movies myself--especially Lucas's take on pumping a vat full of steroids in the original trilogy (IV-VI) and dubbed them "Special Editions". Not only were the "upgraded" scenes useless, but totally looked artificial and only alienated scores of fans and myself from the original feel and nostalgia of the classics. What made the original movies classics were their imperfection. Other than that, the newer installments were not bad. 

The problem with movies like these is that every fan feels like he can do a better job than the people who created it. Some people felt like they died just because the author/director did not take the film the way they wanted it to go. Take it a little more higher in the obsessive scale and you'd have a person not unlike the Stephen King villain in 'Misery'. It's either that, or the 40-Year Old Virgin.