Top 10 Robin Williams Movies

With school starting tomorrow, today's been something of a busy day. I've managed to steer clear of a lot of social media for most of the afternoon and evening. And then I got home a while ago and was shocked to read about the apparent suicide of Robin Williams. I'm not one to often gasp, but I literally gasped when I saw the headline.

It's sad to hear news that anyone has taken his or her own life. But for some reason, it seems to really affect people when it's news of an entertainer who is beloved by so many. Robin Williams played a lot of roles throughout his career, both serious and hilarious. What follows is my personal top 10 list of Robin Williams' films. Like most of my top movie lists, these are gleaned from Flickchart.

10. Bicentennial Man - What's not to love about an android who endeavors to become more human? If Data can do it on board the Enterprise, why can't Robin Williams?

9. Night at the Museum - Has anyone ever portrayed Teddy Roosevelt in such a believable manner? Has anyone else ever portrayed Teddy Roosevelt?

8. Jumanji - This one hasn't really aged well. It's still a fun movie with a good story. But the CGI is kind of pathetic when you compare it to today's technology.

7. Dead Poets Society - Why didn't this one rank higher on my list? Fantastic movie. I'm gonna have to write a strongly worded letter to the Flickchart people about this. Or maybe I should just go in and re-rank it myself.

6. Mrs. Doubtfire - This is probably the one most people think of when they think of Robin Williams. There was talk recently of a sequel. Guess that's off the table now.

5. Good Will Hunting - Another of his more serious roles. Another fantastic movie.

4. Aladdin - This is probably the other one that most people think of when they think of Robin Williams. Remember how they tried to replace him with someone else as the genie in the direct to video sequel? Couldn't hold a candle to the original Genie.

3. August Rush - If memory serves, he played a pretty big jerk in this one, right? It's been a long time since I saw this movie. But I really liked it.

2. Hook - I'm a little surprised this wasn't my number one. As I compile this list, Hook is the movie I've chosen to watch in memory of Robin Williams. Bangarang!

1. Patch Adams - I'm not complaining about this ending up as number one. This is actually a very good movie, but I have a really hard time watching it.

Independence Day

No, this will not be a post about how I spent my 4th of July. This is how I spent my 5th of July.

I haven't watched the classic sci-fi action flick (can a movie from the 90s be called classic?) Independence Day in a long time. So I thought I'd pop it in a day after the real Independence Day. I still enjoy it just as much as I did when I was 16 years old. But I started thinking about something that could be a little disturbing. At least, it's disturbing to me, as someone who has a tendency to think too much about fictional situations.

I don't feel like I should give a spoiler warning, seeing as how the movie is now 18 years old. But... spoilers...

Anyway, the end of the movie sees Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum firing a nuke into the heart of the mother ship which allows the rest of the earthlings to take out the smaller ships positioned around the planet. That's great, right? The humans won and we get to keep our planet!

But think about the implications of that attack. Earlier in the film, Bill Pullman's President Whitmore was telepathically linked with one of the aliens. He saw their plans and saw how they operate. He explained that they're like locusts. They move their entire civilization from planet to planet, using up all the natural resources before moving on to the next.

Did you catch that? Their entire civilization. That means, when the good guys took out the mother ship, they essentially committed genocide. I'm sure there would have been a handful of alien lifeforms that would have survived the destruction of the city-sized saucers, but would the humans have taken them as prisoners of intergalactic war?

I know. In the movie, it was an "us-or-them" kind of situation. If we hadn't annihilated them, they'd have annihilated us. So I'm sure, if I were in charge, my decision to follow through with this plan would have been the same as the one that was scripted. But I'd hope I would take some time to at least think about it. What are the implications of destroying an entire civilization that we know very little about?

There's been talk of a sequel ever since Independence Day was released. Of course there's been talk of a sequel. It made a truckload of cash at the box office. Recently, there's been more talk from the creators, making it sound as if a part two could actually happen at some point. There's been no official announcement, but I can't help wondering what that story would look like.

It's nearly 20 years later. I don't think earth needs to worry about retaliation from the same aliens that attacked the first time, especially if Whitmore was right about the mother ship containing their entire civilization. But can we assume that there are other advanced civilizations out there? Are there some who may have known about the bad guys and their locust-like behavior? Would they come to earth to congratulate us on our victory? Or would they come looking to pick a fight, too? Would they want to see if they could take out the planet that, despite being incapable of interstellar travel, saved itself from a technologically advanced race?

And what about life on earth for the last 20 years? Would the world have united in some way? Throwing aside nationalism and border disputes? Earth is now a galactic power. It only makes sense that we would attempt to reverse engineer as much of the alien tech as we could. That would probably make us capable of interstellar flight. What would have happened to the aliens that survived the final battle? Execution? Integrated into society? They couldn't have all been bent on the destruction of all life, right?

I really think too much about these things. I'd promise to stop overthinking things, but I don't think that's a promise I could keep.

Maleficent

It's been a while since I've done my own movie review. I've seen plenty of movies. I just haven't felt the need to write down my thoughts on them. Actually, I haven't been writing down my thoughts about a lot of things lately. A blog post two days in a row may or may not be a sign that that's changing. Who's to know?

Last night I went to see Maleficent, Disney's new live-action fairy tale. Side note: if you haven't seen it and don't want to read any spoilers, stop reading now. Just know that I thought the movie was pretty good overall. If you keep reading, I'll get into the details of what I thought was good and what slightly bothered me. Seriously, spoilers on...

While I'm not always a fan of revisiting old stories and remaking them for modern audiences (I'm looking at you, Footloose!), the trend of taking old animated properties and doing them with live actors is one that I'm enjoying. Well, maybe I'm just enjoying the idea of it. The actual results are usually somewhat sketchy (I'm looking at you Snow White and the Huntsman!).

Maleficent pulls it off. For the most part. First, the good... Angelina Jolie is fantastic as Maleficent. And I'm not even an Angelina Jolie fan. She presents the character as a tragic heroine turned villain turned heroine. Her journey to the dark side is full of heartache and might even bring a tear to one's eyes. I'm admitting to nothing, by the way.

Aside from Jolie, I'm not sure the other actors are worth mentioning. It's not that they were bad. I just think, compared to Angelina's performance, they just don't have much of a chance to shine. And I'm okay with that. It's called Maleficent. It should be about Maleficent. And it is. It's all about her. Yes, the story involves her relationships with Aurora (aka Sleeping Beauty) and King Stefan and even the three good fairies who wind up raising Aurora.

If you go into this movie expecting a faithful retelling of Sleeping Beauty, you'll probably be disappointed. Personally, I wasn't sure what to expect. I was sort of hoping for something a little closer to the original story, but this definitely was not that. Here, we're introduced to a young Maleficent who is a powerful fairy living in a land full of magical creatures. Those creatures are wary of humans and rightly so. As a girl, she meets Stefan, who is initially a thief, attempting to steal jewels from the Moors (the magical fairy land). Maleficent and Stefan develop a friendship over the years and may even fall in love. Maleficent definitely falls for Stefan, but we later see the true nature of Stefan's heart, which makes the audience question whether or not he was ever truly in love with her.

In his ambition to become king, Stefan takes it upon himself to kill Maleficent at the behest of the current ruler. He's unable to kill her (I guess he felt something for her after all), but instead cuts off her wings as she sleeps. He presents Maleficent's wings to the king as proof of the deed, allowing him to become the heir to the throne. Of course, not killing the fairy would haunt him. This is where the story we're more familiar with begins.

Maleficent is hurt by Stefan's actions. Her heart is broken and her wings have been stolen from her. She is filled with hatred and vengeance. So she takes it out on Stefan's firstborn daughter. We all know how this turns out. But, of course, there's a new twist. Maleficent watches Aurora as she grows. She actually does a better job of taking care of the girl than the good fairies do. Those fairies, by the way, are portrayed as complete morons. Over the years, Maleficent develops a sort of motherly affection for Aurora and even grows to regret the curse she placed on her as an infant.

Like I said earlier, I felt like the movie was very good overall and is definitely worth the time and money to see. But I do have my own issues with the way things were presented.

First of all, aren't there any villains that are just flat out evil anymore? Why do we always need to discover that the bad guys are sympathetic characters that have genuine and understandable motivations behind their evil actions? In the animated Disney classic, Maleficent calls herself the Mistress of All Evil. You don't just give yourself that title because someone wronged you and you're taking your revenge. In that case, whether it's true or not, you feel justified in what you do, no matter how despicable the action. I realize that most villains would consider themselves the good guy of their own story, but after the way Stefan treats Maleficent, the audience feels pretty good about rooting for Maleficent as she takes out her anger on the world. You feel bad for her and want to see Stefan get what's coming to him.

I didn't like Philip's role in the movie. This was the first Disney prince to have a name (other than Charming). In Sleeping Beauty, he was a fairly well-developed character who became an actual hero in the story. In Maleficent, you blink and you miss him. I'm not sure why they spent the time or money to even cast the role.

Like anything else, I'm sure I can pick the movie apart and find more little things that I disliked. But I hate when I do that. Especially when movies are meant to be entertaining for entertainment's sake. And Maleficent was definitely entertaining. Even if you take away all the amazing special effects, Angelina Jolie's performance makes it worth seeing.

Man of Steel Magnolias

I am a grown man and I like the movie Steel Magnolias. I'm not afraid to admit it. I have liked this movie for years. Sure, it's dated, but it's still incredibly quotable. Back in my bank tellering days, a coworker and myself would randomly spout off lines from the film when we would get bored.

A couple years ago, the movie was remade for Lifetime. The remake starred Queen Latifah and Alfre Woodard in the roles made famous by Sally Field and Shirley MacLaine, respectively. This version recently became available on the Netflix, so I decided to give it a look. In some ways, it wasn't as good as the late 80s version. In other ways, it was better.

But something got me thinking as I watched the familiar story. It's actually something I've thought about before. Let me set it up a bit. If you're unaware, Steel Magnolias follows the lives of six women and mostly takes place within the walls of a salon, the business owned by Truvy.

Back in the day, Dolly Parton played the role of Truvy. I remember her letting Annelle (her new employee) know that she ran the most successful beauty parlor in town. But I really have to question the validity of that statement. Throughout the movie, which takes place over the course of three years, we only see four customers coming to Truvy's. I know that repeat customers are common and very important to running a business, but are these occasional mani/pedis enough to keep the bills paid?

Also, Truvy has only one employee. Even a less than successful beauty shop will have a handful of licensed cosmetologists working several shifts throughout a business day. Need I point out she's running this place out of her enclosed carport? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't speak volumes about the financial windfall that is Truvy's.

I know, we only get brief glimpses of these ladies' lives. But I find it to be an odd coincidence that each time we step into Truvy's, these are the only customers.

I don't want to be a jerk about the movie, so I'll end with some favorite quotes...

"If you don't have anything nice to say about anybody, come sit by me."

"I'm not crazy, M'Lynn, I've just been in a very bad mood for 40 years!"

"Ouiser, you sound almost chipper. What happened, you run over a small child or something?"

"I'm not as sweet as I used to be."

Glinda the Sort of Good and Other Thoughts

I've been watching The Wizard of Oz a number of times lately. Mostly I was attempting to prepare for a small group Bible study in which we would try to find the Gospel somewhere in the film. It's possible that we came up with some legitimately good connections. It's also possible that it's like the whole Pink Floyd thing. You see what you want to see.

Anyway, it's not just lately that I've watched that movie. I can probably say I've seen The Wizard of Oz over a hundred times and literally mean it. Everyone says things like that, but it's usually hyperbole. I'm 34 years old and I think it's safe to say I've watched that movie at least three times a year throughout my life. 100 sounds like a pretty decent estimate.

But watching it repeatedly recently got me thinking about some things...

• Glinda the Insulter: When she first appears in front of Dorothy, she asks the poor girl if she's a good witch or a bad witch. Dorothy explains that she's not a witch at all, that witches are old and ugly. Glinda goes on to say that only bad witches are ugly, then asks Dorothy again, good or bad? What is Glinda implying about Dorothy's looks?
• Glinda the "Good": How good is she, really? I don't think she's as "good" as she claims to be. She magics the Ruby Slippers right onto Dorothy's feet while the Wicked Witch is standing right there. Why would she do that? She may as well have painted a big red target on Dorothy's feet.
• The Broomstick: Glinda tells Dorothy how to get to the Emerald City, she asks if she brought her broomstick with her. I assume it's because the broomstick would be a faster mode of transportation than simply walking down the Yellow Brick Road. Dorothy says she's afraid she doesn't have one. But her house is 20 feet away! I'd be willing to bet there's a broom in there somewhere. I'm sure Aunt Em has swept the floors in that old farm house a time or two.
• The Scarecrow's Mental Powers: Dorothy comes across the Scarecrow when he's hanging in a cornfield. He talks to her about the different ways she could go when she's standing at a crossroads. But his lips don't move. Clearly, this means the Scarecrow is telepathic. Telepathy is a mental ability. Logic would dictate that the Scarecrow clearly had a brain the whole time.
• The Lion's Plan: Here we have a Cowardly Lion. He's lying in wait for our band of heroes and their little dog, too. What's the plan as he attacks the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman? They're both on the ground cowering in fear. Why doesn't he strike? Instead, he cracks, "How long do you stay fresh in that can?" What, is he gonna joke them to death? On a different note, could anyone else picture a sitcom where the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Cowardly Lion are roommates? Comedy gold.
• The Importance of the Gatekeeper: Our five glorified trick-or-treaters arrive at the Emerald City. The gatekeeper states that no one has ever seen the Wizard. Even HE has never seen the Wizard. He says it like he's important enough to deserve such a privilege. What makes him so special?
• Do As You're Told!: When Dorothy is held hostage in the Witch's castle, the Wicked Witch says she'll return Toto to the girl if she gives her the Ruby Slippers. Dorothy's reasoning for not complying? "The Good Witch told me not to!" Since when does Dorothy do what she's told? She ran away from home! Sure sign of a rebellious nature. Then the Witch tries to take the shoes by force and gets shocked by them. "Well, can I still have my dog back?" Dorothy asks, sheepishly. Seriously?
• Glinda Again: At the end, Glinda shows up and says Dorothy had the power to go home all along. Why didn't she tell her that to begin with? Because Dorothy had to learn it for herself. But she didn't learn it. Glinda just told her! And I don't think she had any power at all. She clicks her heels and closes her eyes, sure. She chants, "There's no place like home." But Glinda is waving her wand behind Dorothy's head the whole time. Glinda's the one with the real power. She's the one that sent Dorothy back to Kansas. Or sent a wake up call.

Reading that, it makes me sound incredibly cynical toward The Wizard of Oz. But it really is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Speaking of The Wizard of Oz... Don't forget about my 2000th Blog Post Spectacular! You can still win stuff! Several Oz-related items. Today is the final day to enter! The winner will be announced tomorrow!

The Top 10 Movies of 2013

Happy New Year, Carp Dimers!

Have you missed me? I'm going to give you the usual excuses. The holidays got busy, then they got lazy... in that order. Actually, it wasn't the holidays. I got busy, then lazy, in that order. I've got some stories to tell. But today isn't the day for all that.

We all know I have a tendency to see a lot of movies. What follows is my top 10. Please note: these films are my personal top 10. This list does not take into account movies that I did not see and will only include films that were released in theaters in 2013. And if you're ever interested in ranking the movies you've seen, I recommend Flickchart. But be careful, it can become an addictive activity. And now, starting with number 10...

10. Now You See Me

I caught this one over the summer and thought it was a pretty decent heist movie. Might have been a bit predictable, though. Actually, I'm a little surprised it's ranked in my top 10, but I guess Flickchart makes no mistakes.

9. Frozen

I went into Frozen with lowered expectations. I felt like Disney was trying to overhype and oversell their latest animated feature by calling it the best one since The Lion King. What about Tangled? What about Wreck-It Ralph? I thought both of those were excellent. This one was pretty good, but I sure didn't think it was in the same league as The Lion King or any of the other Disney renaissance movies from the early 90s. I definitely would have liked it better if Elsa (the Snow Queen) had been a little more developed as a character.

8. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Not a surprise that this is in my top 10. Though I'm a little surprised it's not higher. I just saw this last week and thought it was incredible. Even in 3D, which I'm rarely a fan of. Maybe it's the addition of Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly. She's kind of awesome. My problem with these movies, like with any prequel, is that I have no sense of dread for characters that I know survive to appear in The Lord of the Rings. I know I'm supposed to feel some kind of suspense when Bilbo goes toe to toe with Smaug, but I don't.

7. Saving Mr. Banks

My family traditionally sees one movie on Christmas Day. This year, it was Saving Mr. Banks. I thought it was a great behind the scenes look at what it took to bring Mary Poppins to the big screen. Beyond that, it was an interesting look at what made Mary Poppins' creator tick. My only complaint is Walt Disney. Don't get me wrong, I think that Tom Hanks is an outstanding actor, probably the best of his generation. But watching him play Disney, I only saw Tom Hanks. Walt Disney was not a role that Tom Hanks was able to disappear into. Though I did appreciate that the studio did not attempt to glorify their founder. They were willing to show the real Walt Disney, a man with flaws just like anyone else.

6. American Hustle

Director David O. Russell really impressed me with The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. So now I kind of want to give him a shot with whatever he's making. American Hustle does not disappoint. It's loosely (probably very loosely) based on actual events, but they're events that took place mostly before I was born. But I did like the way the story played out as told by each of the main cast.

5. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I went into this with extremely low expectations. I was unimpressed with the first installment and I don't have high hopes for Mockingjay, simply because they've chosen to split it into two films. But Catching Fire was very well done. Which is great, because it was my favorite of the books. It seemed like Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson have grown into their roles and the addition of new characters was well done.

4. Iron Man 3

This is another surprise. Not because it wasn't a good movie. I just didn't think it would be as highly ranked as it is. For me, this one tops 2, but not the first.

3. Star Trek Into Darkness

Umm... wow. I thought the reboot film was excellent. This one left the reboot in the dust. At least, it did in my eyes. Not sure how I felt about the depiction of Klingons in this new continuity. Not sure why the changes that have taken place in the universe would cause such drastic changes in their appearance at that point in time. But Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of (spoiler alert) Khan was spectacular. I'm sorry if that was a secret you weren't yet privy to. JJ Abrams didn't do a very good job of keeping that a secret from the world before the film was released.

2. Man of Steel

I know! This one isn't number 1! I'm sure you're all shocked, seeing as how I'm such a huge Superman fan and all. It may not rank as my top movie of the year, but it was absolutely outstanding in my book. For my full thoughts, click here for the review. It's kind of lengthy, so settle in.

1. 12 Years a Slave

This is another one I've seen recently that I actually wrote about on here. I said before, if this doesn't receive multiple Oscars, I will be disappointed.

So that's it for 2013 in movies. What were your favorites? Do you agree with any of my rankings? Do you disagree? Let me know what your favorites of the year were in the comments below. Stay tuned for more of my thoughts as we enter 2014. And I promise, there will be more than just movies to read about.

12 Years a Slave

I don't know why I don't jump at the chance to see movies at the Lyric theater. That place is amazing. Seeing a film in that old theater is how I imagine it would have been to go to the movies in Hollywood's heyday. It's also how I imagine it would have been to see movies in that old theater in Bluefield that I wanted to buy so many years ago. That's a good story, I should tell it sometime.

Anyway, last night I got the chance to see 12 Years a Slave at the Lyric with some friends. If you're interested in seeing an intense movie this season, this is the one to see. Based on actual events, it tells the story of Solomon Northup from the time he's kidnapped from his home in New York and sold into slavery until his eventual escape from bondage.

The cast list reads like a who's who of incredible actors: Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Fassbender, Paul Giamatti, Alfre Woodard, Brad Pitt. And if you don't know the name Chiwitel Ejiofor, who played Solomon Northup, you will after this. He has been in a number of films and is a fantastic actor. I will be shocked if he's not at least nominated for best actor at the Oscars. I'll also be shocked if the movie overall isn't nominated for best picture.

There's a lot I could say about this movie. But I won't. I'm just going to insist that you see it for yourself. Like I said, it's intense, which probably isn't a strong enough word. It depicts an incredibly shameful and dark period in American history, so intense comes with the territory. If you see it or have seen it, let me know what you thought of it in the comments below.

AFI 38 - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Welcome to my journey through the American Film Institute's top 100 movies of all time (as of 2007). I've been counting down from number 100 and will eventually get to what they consider the best movie ever made. I've agreed with some. Others I've really not liked. Keep reading to see how I felt about this one...

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

1948

Directed by John Huston

Netflix sleeve: Wrapped in a classic tale of adventure, this Academy Award winner helmed by John Huston follows a trio of gold prospectors who set out to strike it rich and agree to split the take until paranoia and greed consumes one of them. Delivering superb performances as the three miners are Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt and Walter Huston, who copped a Best Supporting Actor Oscar while son John scored statuettes for his direction and screenplay.

So, I've had this disc sitting in my room for months. And it was sitting in my room at my previous apartment for several months before that. Good thing Netflix doesn't believe in late fees. I finally remembered that it was there. And remembered that I hadn't even touched the AFI list since April. So here we go. This is a first time viewing for me. I finally got to experience the origin of the classic line, "We don't have to show you no stinking badges!" All in all, the movie is pretty good and shows just how three guys in the middle of nowhere looking for gold can go a little (or a lot) crazy.

Man of Steel

Okay. It's now been well over a week since I saw Man of Steel. Actually, it's been nearly two weeks. I saw it at 12:01 on, what was technically, June 14th, opening day. I left the theater thinking it was awesome. Today, as I sit in front of my computer to put down my thoughts, I still think it was awesome.

I should go ahead and mention, there will be plenty of spoilers in this here blog post. It's not because I want to spoil the plot of the movie for you, in case you haven't seen it yet. It's just because there's a lot I want to unpack and I'm not sure I'll be able to control myself or the information that spews out of my frantically typing fingers.

I guess I'm not really typing that frantically. I mean, it has been nearly two weeks since I saw the movie and I've managed to wait this long to write all my thoughts. But I had to wait. I wanted to make sure those thoughts would be coherent and not pure babble.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Superman film that we should have seen back in 2006 when Superman Returns hit the cinema. Not that I thought Superman Returns was horrible. It's just that it was a relic. It rehashed a story that had already been told in 1978. I guess they thought that if they threw in the fact that Superman fathered a child with Lois Lane, it would be viewed as fresh. I think most of the world disagreed. But let's not focus on failed attempts to reinvigorate the Superman franchise. Let's not focus on the past.

Let's focus on the present. Or, at the very least, focus on Krypton's past. The film opens up on Superman's home world. For the first time on film, we're introduced to an alien world that doesn't look like it's already dead. In the past, Krypton has been presented as cold and sterile. This time there are native creatures that interact with the people. Krypton is shown to have a rich history, one that I would love to see explored in the right way. But we only get a glimpse in Man of Steel. But it's a good glimpse.

Jor-El assists his wife, Lara, as she gives birth to a son. We soon find out that this is the first natural birth on Krypton in centuries. Children are grown, Matrix-style, in something called a Genesis Chamber. Not only are they grown and harvested, but they're programmed for specific purposes and tasks to be performed within their society. More on that later.

After the birth of his son, Jor-El goes before the Kryptonian high council, or whatever they are, and pleads with them. Yes, we've seen this happen before. Jor-El knows the planet is doomed. This time it's because they've used up the world's natural resources, including whatever useful stuff was found in Krypton's core. This has made the planet unstable. Its destruction is imminent.

But there's just enough time for General Zod to stage a coup. While Jor-El is trying to gain access to the codex which contains the Kryptonian genetic code that feeds the Genesis Chambers, Zod wants to eliminate the council so he can "save" Krypton in his own way. During the initial battle, Jor-El puts up a great fight and escapes. He manages to get his hands on the codex (which looks a lot like a deteriorated skull), does something technical with it involving baby Kal-El's space ship, then sends them on their way to Earth. In a fit of anger, Zod kills Jor-El in response to losing his own grip on the codex. Kal-El gets away, the coup fails, Zod and his people are tossed into the Phantom Zone and Krypton explodes.

Next we meet an adult Clark Kent. Well, I guess we don't know it's Clark Kent. He goes by "Joe" but we know it's him because he's played by Henry Cavill, who the viewer knows is the actor who plays Superman. Doesn't take much to connect these dots. We get the impression that Clark has kind of been floating around the world, with no real direction in his life. Whatever it is he's doing, he gets distracted a lot. Because he has this tendency to do good wherever he goes, saving lives and standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves. Before he's established as a hero, he's already a hero.

Eventually, he finds his way to a place in the far north where the military is investigating something strange buried beneath the ice. Turns out, it's an ancient Kryptonian scout ship. Clark finds his way inside, activates the ship and learns all about who he really is. Enter Lois Lane, investigative reporter extraordinaire. Clark saves her life when she is attacked by an automated security system on the ship. Then he disappears from her life.

But Lois Lane is not the type of woman to just let a man who can shoot heat rays from his eyes disappear into the ether. Being the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist that she is, she manages to trace her mysterious hero back to a farm in Kansas. She visits Martha Kent, then takes a trip to a local cemetery to visit Jonathan Kent's grave. Once again, she comes face to face with the Man of Steel.

Clark tells Lois about his upbringing and about how his father knew he needed to keep his abilities secret from the world because the world just wasn't ready to know that there was a being with his kind of power out there. Jonathan even sacrificed his own life to drive that point home for Clark. This convinces Lois to drop her story about a mysterious alien with super powers.

Now we come to the return of Zod and his band of outlaws. When Krypton exploded, the Phantom Zone was damaged, releasing the prisoners. Zod's people traveled throughout the galaxy, searching for signs of Kryptonian life. All they found was death as they came across a number of forgotten outposts. Then they picked up the signal of the ship that Clark activated beneath the ice, leading them straight to Earth. Upon arriving in Earth's orbit, Zod demanded that Kal-El turn himself over to them.

Zod made it seem, at first, that he wanted to welcome Kal-El into this group of what was left of his people. All he really wanted was the codex. He also wanted to reshape Earth in Krypton's image. This meant terraforming the planet, changing the atmosphere so that the Kryptonians could breathe the air. Zod was willing to wipe out all of humanity in order to achieve his goal.

Superman gained the trust of the US military and, with Lois' help, they devise a plan to send Zod and his people back to the Phantom Zone on a more permanent basis. This plan eventually works, but not before an incredible loss of life as Zod's ship and their "World Engine" nearly destroyed Metropolis. Zod managed to escape the singularity that pulled his followers back to the Zone, leading to the climactic one-on-one battle between the general and Superman.

That's your summary. And I feel like I left a lot out. I think I feel that way because the movie is so much deeper than the plot that's right on the surface. I'm hoping at this point you're not already bored with this post, because I've got so much more to say. If you're willing to stick with this, thanks. And I hope you at least like what else I have to say.

Let's talk about the acting. First of all, Henry Cavill is Superman. I thought he did a fantastic job as the world's greatest super hero. He's not the Superman that people grew up with. He's a modern Superman who was raised in our modern world. There are probably people who think he's too dark and brooding, but I don't think he is. When we first meet Clark Kent, he's sad and confused about who he is and this leads to a certain amount of loneliness. He's never in any one place long enough to lay down any roots. That's a hard life to live. But he's not a dark sociopath, like a certain caped crusader. He's still a Kansas farm boy. And when he figures out he can fly, he gets excited about it. The smile on his face as he flies for the first time is the kind of smile I'd have on my face if I figured out I could fly. It's the look of someone who's really excited about what he can do.

The rest of the cast was really good too. Amy Adams was great as Lois Lane. I'm not sure how I felt about the chemistry between her and Cavill. But that could have been a problem with the story. They just kind of got thrown together and sort of generate a quick relationship out of nothingness, simply because it's Superman and Lois Lane. When it comes to the character, I was incredibly happy that Lois figured out who Superman is before he even figures it out. For 75 years she's been this investigative journalist who never put two and two together. The only reason she knew about his dual identity for most of the last two decades was because Clark revealed himself to her after they got engaged in the 90s. Lois Lane should be able to figure out that Clark Kent is Superman. Otherwise, she needs to give back her Pulitzer.

I've heard complaints about Kevin Costner and Diane Lane in their roles as the Kents. I have no complaints. I thought they both did a good job with what they were given. My problem here, again, is with the writing. Their characters were just not fleshed out enough. There's so much more to these people who raised an alien baby than what we were given on the screen. Most of what we saw were in snippets of flashbacks. Another problem people may have had is with Jonathan Kent's death. I don't have a problem with that part of his characterization. During a tornado, he showed his son an example of a hero. More than that, he sacrificed himself to protect his son's secret powers. He felt the world was not ready to know about Clark's true nature and so silently asked Clark to let him die rather than reveal himself to the public. That was probably the most moving scene in the movie.

Then there's Clark's biological father, Jor-El, played by Russell Crowe. His role is part of the reason I'd love to see more about this version of Krypton. Jor-El was shown to be a passionate activist who loved his home and was willing to think outside the box in an attempt to save it. But he wasn't just a passive scientist. The dude could hold his own in a fight. I'm not sure how. I want to know where he learned to fight. He went toe to toe with trained Kryptonian soldiers. During Zod's coup, he was fighting as if he'd been trained by Batman.

I wasn't sure what to think of Michael Shannon before I saw this movie. I'm not too familiar with him, but thought he was great as Zod. General Zod is not the kind of villain who shows up and makes you feel sorry for him. In the past, the character has been portrayed as just a powerful guy who wants to be in charge and pretty much tear stuff up. There's never been a clear motive for why he does what he does. This time we get a good explanation. Zod was bred to be a warrior. He was born to preserve the Kryptonian way of life. When Krypton was destroyed, he lost a big chunk of that life purpose. When the remainder of his people were sucked back into the Phantom Zone without him, the rest of his life purpose was taken away. He was already a genocidal maniac. Losing Krypton just pushed him further over the edge. We learned about his motivation, but that doesn't mean we had to feel sorry for him. Shannon definitely delivered on Zod's emotional turmoil.

I'd be remiss to leave out Zod's second in command, Faora-Ul, played by Antje Traue. She made Superman II's Ursa look like a kitty cat. She very quickly adjusts to her new strength and speed and takes out human soldiers the way a ruthless Kryptonian soldier would. Fast. Efficient. Which kind of brings me to a problem I have with any Superman story that introduces Kryptonians on Earth. They immediately have super powers. Superman has been here for 30ish years absorbing the yellow sunlight and adjusting to how they work. Every time another Kryptonian shows up, they generally have the same abilities right away. I will say I liked how they had trouble with the super hearing and x-ray vision at first, disorienting them for a bit. But that was a minor inconvenience for Zod and his people. I'm not saying the new Kryptonians should show up and be like normal humans, but they shouldn't be as powerful as Superman right off the bat.

I definitely like all the little things that are thrown in to the movie that shows it takes place in a larger DC Universe. Most of the details have greater meaning in the Superman mythos. For example, we don't catch a glimpse of Lex Luthor at all in the film, but we know he exists. How do we know this? There are several moments in the film where we see product placement for LexCorp. Other characters are glimpsed or mentioned: Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Ken Braverman... all characters from Clark Kent's past in Smallville. And how do we know Superman's world will likely intersect with the rest of the DC Universe? Zod and Kal-El's climactic battle takes them into orbit where they crash into a satellite owned by Wayne Enterprises.

Finally, Superman kills. There's a part of me that's okay with this, because he has killed in the past. In the late 80s, Superman faced a General Zod character from an alternate dimension. That version of Zod committed genocide on an alternate earth, similar to what Man of Steel's Zod intended to do. Superman knew the only way to put a stop to Zod's murderous rampage was to end his life. It was a difficult choice which, in the comics, eventually cost Superman a piece of his sanity for a while. It's obvious that the Man of Steel is conflicted by this decision in the film as well. It doesn't seem to drive him insane, but it's not something he enjoyed doing.

However, that being said, there's a whole lot of destruction of property happening here. I mean, Metropolis is all but destroyed. The loss of life must be incredible. And it's pretty much the same story with Smallville, on a slightly smaller scale. Why isn't Kal-El too concerned about the risk to human life during all those fights he has with the Kryptonians? He takes time out to save Lois and the guy from SVU, but at the same time, he's driving Zod through the foundations of skyscrapers, knocking them over in midtown Metropolis. I get that, in the heat of battle, it's hard to slow down and think about the consequences of every punch thrown. But he only seems to notice the casualties when Zod points out that he will start purposely murdering people while Superman watches helplessly.

Overall, I still thought the movie was amazing. I'm excited to know that the sequel is already in the works. I'm not sure I should get my hopes up because there seems to be some current turmoil behind the scenes with the people at Warner Bros. They always manage to screw up a good thing. Unless it has to do with Batman or Harry Potter. For now, we have Man of Steel, which I plan to view repeatedly once it hits the DVD. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Totally worth the price of admission.

Before Seeing Man of Steel

As I write these words, I sit alone in my apartment. I'm waiting patiently for midnight to arrive. Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time should be aware that I'm kind of a big Superman fan. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I'm kind of excited about Man of Steel, the latest incarnation of Superman on the big screen.

There's been no question in my mind that I'll be seeing this film at some point during the opening weekend. It's just been a question of when. Unfortunately, I'm scheduled to work my second job on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. That kind of cuts into the possibilities a little.

So I was left with the options of the midnight premiere on Thursday night or a Saturday matinee. Despite midnight movies being high on my Murtaugh List, I decided to get a ticket to the midnight show. I have a feeling I'll think it's worth it, once I've seen the movie. But I might have some slight regrets when I have to go to work tomorrow.

I attempted to invite a few friends to come to the show with me, but none could make it. It might be a good thing, though. I'm not sure I'm ready for people that I've so recently become friends with to see me geek out on such an epic level, which I'm sure is bound to happen.

I mean... it's Superman... back on the big screen... And, for the record, I will be wearing a classic Superman t-shirt. I doubt I'll be the only one.

I won't post my thoughts on the movie immediately after seeing it. No matter how good or bad the movie is, I'll be too excited about it. I'll see it as awesome no matter what. I made that mistake with Superman Returns when it came out. Posted a glowing review the very next day. I was later informed that Superman Returns wasn't as great as I initially thought it was. Upon repeated viewings, I kind of had to agree. Sad, really.

But I'll post some thoughts at some point after processing. It'll either remain awesome or it will be something less.

Update: It's a little after 3am. My first impression, which may be a little fueled by sleep deprivation: it was some kind of awesome! Like, really awesome. Like, I'd be willing to see it again, that kind of awesome.

PS - I saw a total of 14 people with Superman t-shirts of varying styles. I'm a little surprised there weren't more.

Star Trek Into Darkness

I'm not sure that I would consider myself a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. I don't know which term is supposed to be derogatory. Either way, I don't put myself in that people group.

I will admit to being a sci-fi junky. I'm not too discriminating when it comes to science fiction entertainment. There are some franchises that I hesitate to get into, just because it feels exhausting to invest in brand new fictional realities. Though I recently (finally) sat through the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series and am now getting into the Doctor Who phenomenon.

But I was kind of raised on Star Trek. Dad was a big fan. I'd probably call him a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Whatever. Though he never dressed like a Klingon to go to a convention, which might be a defining characteristic of the Trekkie/Trekker.

Before Dad passed away, he and I saw ever Star Trek film that was released in theaters. Well, from the fourth one on. I wasn't born when the first one came out and was far too young to see Wrath of Khan or Search for Spock when they were in theaters.

So now, every new Star Trek movie that comes out, I go to see in memory of Dad. He would have absolutely loved the reboot that came out in 2009. And I think he would have loved Into Darkness. By the way, from here on in, there be spoilers. You have been warned. If you just want to know what I thought of the movie without being spoiled, here it is: it was pretty much awesome. Now, you non-spoiler people, go away.

Everyone who's left, I expect you've either seen the new Trek or are ready to be spoiled on some key plot points.

I'm not sure exactly how much of the movie ended up being a huge surprise to fans anyway. There had been rumors since they rebooted the film series that the sequel would feature the classic Trek villain Khan. JJ Abrams did his best to keep details of the film on lock down. I think he did a pretty good job. Or maybe I purposely avoided possible spoilers on the internet over the last couple years. Still, the rumor was a pretty strong one.

Turns out, it wasn't just a rumor. Sure, they gave Benedict Cumberbatch's character an assumed identity, but about halfway through the movie, he admits that he is, in fact, Khan Noonien Singh. But, as it turns out, while Khan is still not a good guy, he's not the film's main villain. That honor goes to Admiral Marcus, played by Robocop. I mean Peter Weller. I'm getting ahead of myself.

Into Darkness throws the audience right into some action from the start. The crew of the Enterprise is on a mission to study a pre-warp society. Actually, they're pre-industrial as well. But while surveying the planet, they discover that a massive volcano is about the erupt, which would annihilate all life on said planet. And so, in a severe breach of the prime directive, they decide to stop the volcano from erupting. This causes all kinds of problems when Kirk and Spock return to Starfleet Headquarters. Kirk is demoted, Spock is transferred to a different ship. Great way to start the movie, right?

Meanwhile, this guy who's not supposed to be Khan manipulates someone in Starfleet Intelligence, making him become a suicide bomber at a secret installation in London. When the powers that be at Starfleet gather to discuss the bombing, Not Khan attacks and kills Admiral Pike, who has been like a father to Kirk. Understandably, Kirk is ready for some revenge. Admiral Marcus recognizes this and sends Kirk after Not Khan, who has decided to hide out on Kronos, the Klingon homeworld.

It's funny, I was wondering when we'd be introduced to the Klingons in this alternate Star Trek reality. They have a different kind of look that I'm still not too sure about, but maybe it works. Kirk, Spock and Uhura arrive in an uninhabited area of the planet where Not Khan is supposedly hiding out. They're met by a pretty aggressive squadron of Klingon warriors who, at this point in Federation history, do not get along with humans. A fight breaks out and Not Khan ends up saving our heroes. Then he gives himself up and is placed under arrest and returned to Enterprise.

But why would he do that? Because Spock mentioned the number of powerful torpedoes that were aimed right at his location. 72. What does that number mean? Turns out it's the number of cryogenically frozen people who represent Khan's crew. Oh, yeah, Not Khan admits that he's Khan.

See, when Vulcan was destroyed in the last movie, Admiral Marcus did a deep space search for the SS Botany Bay, Khan's cryo-ship. Marcus thawed Khan in order to use him as a tactician. Marcus believed that a war with the Klingons was coming and he wanted to be prepared. When Khan became a loose cannon, Marcus wanted to clean up the mess. And he wanted to use Captain Kirk to do that for him. And then he planned to destroy Enterprise and her crew. Real stand up guy, Admiral Marcus.

I loved this movie. As a fan of Wrath of Khan (which I consider the best of the original cast's films), I was excited to see all the throw backs and Easter eggs that were thrown into the movie. Alice Eve joins the cast as Carol Marcus. If you saw Wrath of Khan, you'd recognize her as a former flame of Kirk's, and the mother of his son. Obviously, these are younger, alternate versions of the characters we knew, but it's nice to see the possible connection between these characters beginning to form. Maybe they'll explore that further in the next sequel. Which is almost certain to happen.

And you know how William Shatner screamed "KHAAAAAAN!!!" when Khan stole the Genesis device and left him marooned underground? We got that scream again. But this time, it didn't come from Kirk. It came from Spock, who showed a surprising amount of emotion at the climax of the film. It was kind of touching. I nearly cried. But, unlike the Vulcan, I was able to contain my emotions.

So yeah, this was a really good movie. I'd go see it again if I thought I could afford it. If you liked the last Star Trek, you'll love this one. I definitely think it's better than the last one.

Summer Movies That Might Be Worth Seeing

Summer is a happy time. The days are longer. The air is warmer. The sun is shinier. School is out. And the movies get a little more explosive. And dramatic. And funny. Or maybe it's just that Hollywood pulls out the stops and makes the movies seem like all of those things have gotten better. In some cases, they get it right. It's definitely not always the case. Some movies that are expected to be blockbusters become box office bombs. No one sets out to make a bad movie. Except for the Wachowski brothers when they decided to make the Matrix sequels. Here are some movies that I'm looking forward to in the months ahead.

In theaters this weekend (May 3):

Iron Man 3

I saw this today. It was really good. I might do a more in depth review later. For now, you'll just have to be happy with my statement that I thought it was the best of the three.

Coming Soon...
May 10:

The Great Gatsby

Never read the book. Never saw the older films. But it looks good.

May 17:

Star Trek: Into Darkness

The last one was just about awesome. The follow-up looks just as good.

May 24:

The Hangover Part III

Okay, the second one wasn't great. Actually, it was real disappointing. But you can't see the first two parts of a trilogy and not stick around for the final act.

May 31:

After Earth

M. Night Shyamalan's more recent stuff has been kind of disappointing. But I like some sci-fi. This looks decent.

Now You See Me

This one I don't know a whole lot about, but the trailer has me intrigued enough to want to take a look.

June 7:

The Internship

Good to see Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn working together again. Wedding Crashers is a classic, maybe this will recreate that same kind of magic.

Much Ado About Nothing

William Shakespeare meets Joss Whedon? Yes, please.

June 14:

Man of Steel

Does the word "duh" mean anything to you?

June 21:

Monsters University

Like most of what Pixar has to offer, I loved Monsters, Inc. Why wouldn't I give this one a shot?

World War Z

A zombie movie where the zombies move like rabid wolves rather than shambling corpses that are falling apart? Should be a little more exciting than the average zombie movie. Honestly, it wouldn't take a lot to be more exciting than the majority of the last couple seasons of The Walking Dead.

July 5:

Despicable Me 2

If you saw the first one, you'll understand why this is a must see: the minions.

July 19:

Red 2

If you saw the first one, you'll understand why this is a must see: actually, I don't have a good one for this. I just thought the first one was really clever.

July 26:

The Wolverine

Come on, it's Wolverine.

August 9:

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

Being a fan of the Percy Jackson book series, I was enormously disappointed with the first film adaptation. But this trailer looks a little better than The Lightning Thief. Here's hopin'.

August 23:

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

This book series is on my list of things to read, assuming I can ever find time to get around to them. The movie looks pretty good.

AFI 39 - Dr. Strangelove

Welcome to my journey through the American Film Institute's top 100 movies of all time (as of 2007). I've been counting down from number 100 and will eventually get to what they consider the best movie ever made. I've agreed with some. Others I've really not liked. Keep reading to see how I felt about this one...

Dr. Strangelove

1964

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Netflix sleeve: When a fanatical U.S. general (Sterling Hayden) launches an air strike against the Soviets, they raise the stakes by threatening to unleash a "doomsday device," setting the stage for Armageddon in this classic black comedy that brilliantly skewers the nuclear age. The film's star-studded cast includes George C. Scott, Slim Pickens, James Earl Jones and Peter Sellers (who steals the show and copped an Oscar nod playing three roles).

This is one of those I kind of feel like I should have seen before now, yet I never had. Now that I've seen it, I'm glad I watched it, simply for the sake of watching it. But I wasn't really all that impressed. I mean, it's a film that is firmly settled into our pop culture. So it's constantly referenced by movies and TV shows all over the place. Particularly the scene where Slim Pickens rides the nuke like a bull at a rodeo. But I just don't think I'd put it in my personal top 100.

AFI 40 - The Sound of Music

The Sound of Music

1965

Directed by Robert Wise

Netflix sleeve: In Rodgers and Hammerstein's greatest collaboration, a feisty postulant named Maria (Julie Andrews) is sent to care for the unruly, motherless Von Trapp children. She soon tames them -- and finds herself falling for their stern father (Christopher Plummer). Oscar-winning director Robert Wise used stunning Austrian locations to transform the popular stage musical into a cinema classic in which the hills truly seemed to come alive.

Really glad this was next on the list. Because it seriously reminded me just how much I freakin' love this movie. I love the music. I love the characters. I love the humor. Such a great film. It's one that definitely belongs in the top 100. Okay, I'll give it to you, the opening scene with Julie Andrews twirling on a hilltop is a little cheesy. But that's okay because it's iconic at the same time. Best interaction in the whole movie? Gotta be the scene after the Captain introduces the kids to Maria. He's tried to teach her all the different signals with the whistle. But she doesn't want to use the whistle and argues that it's degrading. So as the Captain walks away, she whistles loudly and lets him know that he didn't teach her his signal. "You may call me Captain." Classic. Maybe you had to be there. By far the greatest of the Rodgers and Hammerstein flicks. I might go watch it again.

AFI 41 - King Kong

King Kong

1933

Directed by Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack

Netflix sleeve: Delivering action, adventure, chills and thrills, this precedent-setting monster movie tells a timeless tale of man vs. beast. While shooting in the jungle, filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) discovers an awe-inspiring marvel of nature: a 50-foot gorilla dubbed Kong. Subduing the mighty beast, the crew returns to New York with the primate, who promptly escapes, spreading mayhem and going ape for the production's leading lady (Fay Wray).

It's been a very long time since I watched this original, classic monster movie. Of course, I've seen Peter Jackson's more recent remake a handful of times. It's hard to go from having that version fresh on my mind to going back in time to see the really bad special effects. But I tried to view it through the eyes of someone who would be seeing it for the first time in 1933. Not really possible, but those effects must have been really impressive at that time. There's no denying the fact that this movie is a classic that probably broke ground in its day.

AFI 42 - Bonnie and Clyde

Bonnie and Clyde

1967

Directed by Arthur Penn

Netflix sleeve: Serial bank robbers, sometime lovers and folkloric heroes Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) barrel across Depression-ravaged America on a shooting spree that ends in a deadly rain of bullets and tragedy. Directed by Arthur Penn, this stylish and sexy film shattered the mold when it came to crime pictures, layering comedy onto mayhem and youthful criminality. Gene Wilder makes his big-screen debut.

Well, that was violent. I mean, I guess it wasn't that violent by today's standards. But, wow, it was kind of violent. You almost want to feel sorry for Bonnie and Clyde at the end, but really, you shouldn't. They killed a lot of people in their crime spree. Kind of a "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing. Except with guns instead of swords. I didn't think it was a bad movie. It's just not one that I'll be watching repeatedly.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Confession: I've been looking forward to this movie since I first heard it was in the works. If I've never mentioned it before, I love just about all things Oz.

I've probably seen the classic Wizard of Oz film a hundred times. I'm even a fan of Disney's less than stellar Return to Oz. L. Frank Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the book that started it all, is my favorite book of all time. I still have the old copy that my aunt gave me for my 6th birthday and read it about once a year.

I admit, I haven't read all the Oz books. But it's worth mentioning that there are dozens of them. Baum himself wrote 14, and I'd love to at least read his original series. Thus far, I've gotten through the first six. I also haven't gotten around to reading Gregory Maguire's Wicked series, though I've heard good things.

Anyway, back to this movie. I was excited when I started seeing trailers for the new Oz. I was intrigued by the idea of a prequel to the classic story that I'd grown up loving. At the same time, loving the original made me skeptical about how good it could possibly be. I had high hopes, but I was cautious.

Oscar Diggs is portrayed by James Franco. Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of his. I was somewhat disappointed when news came out that he would be playing the Wizard, as opposed to Johnny Depp or Robert Downey, Jr., who were both attached to the role at one point. That being said, Franco did a great job. He was able to believably play the flawed hero without overselling the part.

Also taking prominent roles are the three witches that had been previously introduced in Oz film history. There's Glinda the Good, who really has no mystery to her character. Then there are Theodora and Evanora, sisters who never had names in the movie or in Baum's books. I know these characters have names in Wicked, but Maguire's work is completely separate from this movie franchise.

The mystery surrounding the sisters mostly has to do with which direction each of these sisters will go. One would be destined to live in the west, the other would end up in the east. We know how their stories end, this is an interesting portrayal of their beginnings.

Theodora is the naive younger sister of Evanora. Her naivete becomes her undoing when she falls in love with Oz, who is little more than a womanizing con man. With some helpful manipulation from her big sister, she proves the old saying that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

As with the orginal film, Oz encounters people and creatures that remind him of folks he'd known back in the real world. Glinda is the spitting image of a woman he loved back in Kansas. A winged monkey who assists him in his quest is similar to the man who was his magician's assistant at his circus. And the little China doll whose legs Oz glues back together is the same as a wheelchair-bound little girl who came to his magic show begging him to make her walk again.

The difference here is that we're not left believing that Oz is a dream land, as it seemed to be where Doroty was concerned. That makes it a little harder to swallow the idea that he could encounter these people from his old life.

I love that there are tons of nods to the original movie. Oz's real world love wears a gingham dress, similar to Dorothy's. She mentions a possible engagement to a John Gale. Any relation to Henry Gale, Dorothy's uncle? The circus where Oz performs his magic act is named after L. Frank Baum. And when the Wizard flies to Oz in his hot air balloon, he literally flies over the rainbow.

I loved this movie. It was amOZing. OZsome. StupendOZ (okay, that's the last one, I promise). I highly recommend seeing it. And see it in 3D. I usually hate 3D, but it's really well done with this movie.

On a side note, I'm also hoping that this will interest a new generation of readers to explore L. Frank Baum's original literary work. They're such great books that really don't get the attention they deserve. If you haven't had a chance to read any of them, by all means, pick them up.

My 2013 Oscar Predictions

Via

Each year around this time, I like to challenge myself. I like to challenge others, too, but I'm pretty sure I'm watching the Oscars alone this time. So the challenge is really just to see how many winners I can correctly predict. The awards air on Sunday night, so be sure to come back then to see how I did with my picks...

Best Short Film (Live Action): Curfew - No reason in particular. I haven't seen any of these short films.
Best Short Film (Animated): Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare" - It's got Maggie Simpson. How do you not vote for that? I'm changing my vote here. I forgot that I watched Paperman a few weeks ago and thought it was great. That's what I'm pulling for.
Best Visual Effects: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - There were giant eagles, man.
Best Sound Mixing: Les Miserables - They sang on set! That's gotta pose a challenge to the sound mixologists.
Best Sound Editing: Django Unchained - Okay, I'll be honest, I don't even know the difference between the mixing and the editing. But you're all doing a wonderful job.
Best Cinematography: Life of Pi - I didn't see it, but the trailer looked stunning.
Best Film Editing: Argo - No real reason for this one either.
Best Production Design: Les Miserables
Best Makeup & Hairstyling: Les Miserables - It might be that I have to pick this movie every time I see it nominated. Not sure yet...
Best Documentary (Short): Open Heart - Again, I didn't see any of these. Just a wild guess.
Best Documentary: The Invisible War - I can only assume that this is about soldiers who have been issued cloaks of invisibility, making it the most awesome documentary of all time.
Best Original Score: Skyfall
Best Original Song: "Skyfall" from Skyfall - It's Adele. She wins everything she's ever nominated for. And, how 'bout that... picked something other than Les Miserables.
Best Costume Design: Les Miserables - And we're back.
Best Adapted Screenplay: Silver Linings Playbook - I've heard good things.
Best Original Screenplay: Django Unchained
Best Foreign Film: No, Chile - I just like that the entire title of this film is a two letter word.
Best Animated Feature Film: Brave - Epic.
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables - If she does not win this category, I may stop watching movies altogether. Her performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" alone was worth the price of admission for that movie.
Best Supporting Actor: Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook - She got the Golden Globe and the SAG Award for the role. I think she's got this one too.
Best Actor: Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Best Director: Ang Lee, Life of Pi
Best Picture: Argo - Honestly, I'd like to see it go to Les Mis, but the most logical choice is Argo.

AFI 43 - Midnight Cowboy

Midnight Cowboy

1969

Directed by John Schlesinger

Netflix sleeve: To earn cash as a freelance sex stud and work toward his dream of becoming a kept man, hayseed hustler Joe Buck heads to New York City, where an improbable friendship blossoms when he meets seedy con man Ratso Rizzo.

I'm gonna go ahead and say this one won't make my personal top 100. Not that it was a horrible movie. Joe seems like a naive kind of guy and Ratso kind of preys on that at first. From there it gets a little depressing. I don't think this will be a movie that I'll watch repeatedly over the coming years. In fact, this may be the only time in my life that I watch it. And I'm okay with that.