Tag: Tom Hanks

Did you see Won’t You Be My Neighbor? It was a documentary about Mr. Rogers, came out last year, it is amazing and the best documentary of 2018. It wasn’t nominated for an Oscar though, because everything is stupid and life is meaningless.

Wait wait wait wait. I shouldn’t say that. Mr. Rogers would certainly disagree with that statement.

And in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood we have to look at Fred Rogers and get judged all the while, because it is hard to live up to perfection.

How can he interact with kids all day, and keep his house clean at the same time?It’s a beautiful day in the late 90’s, and Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) is a journalist. He writes for Esquire, and has a history of really going hard after people. He is an investigative reporter, he brings up dirt, he exposes people, and a lot of people don’t want to work with him now. He also recently had a baby with his wife (Susan Kelechi Watson), who has stopped work to stay with their baby boy.

And sure, things are tough. He actually recently got in a fist fight at his sister’s third wedding, dealing with his estranged father (Chris Cooper) who wanted to recently reconnect after a really rough childhood.

And now? And now Lloyd has to go to Pittsburgh to interview Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks) for a fluff piece for his magazine. They are going to do a story on heroes. He only needs 400 words, barely anything. And well, Lloyd things that he can crack him. That there is someone different underneath the Mr. Rogers facade.

But while trying to get to the real Fred Rogers, it turns out that Lloyd is being cracked open as well.

Also starring Maryann Plunkett, Wendy Makkena, Enrico Colantoni, and Christine Lahti.

How dare a journalist learn something about themselves in an interview. How shocking!

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is going to suffer due to poor advertising on the reality of the film.

First of all, a movie about a journalist interviewing a celebrity and it changing their lives is not a new subject. Just recently we had The End of the Tour and My Dinner with Henre, it is certainly turning into some sort of trope. And with advertising it is not really super clear that this is the case for this film, unlike the previous two mentioned.

No, this looks like a movie about Mr. Rogers! Doing Mr. Rogers stuff! Being humble and awesome! And sure, that happens in this movie, but so, so, so much of the focus is on the journalist dealing with his issues, and Mr. Rogers being the magical other person fixing his life with positivity.

But the issue is, and no offense to the real journalist, no one cares about him. Those parts drag down the film. I went in wanting Rogers, and sure, he was in it. His style his way of talking, his voice, his show. They were all featured and a major aspect. And yet, who cares, no big deal, I wan’t more.

Watch the documentary if you want a better Rogers experience. And yes, Hanks does good at the acting.

2 out of 4.

Controversially, I did not love Toy Story 3. I thought it was average. I did like it more than Toy Story 2 though, but the first Toy Story was still my favorite.

Oh sure, it made me cry like a sane person, but I didn’t like its main arc with Lotso Bear and it put a damper on the whole thing. But also like everyone else, it felt like a natural end to the series and was happy to see their ending.

Now, then they announced a Toy Story 4. This was terrible news. Not just because of the ending of three, but because Pixar has been splurting out sequels to everything the last few years, very few OC, and they have been average to poor. Toy Story 4 meant the end to their sequels for awhile, but it also felt like it shouldn’t even exist.

The plot had to overcome quite a few hurdles, and couldn’t just be a regular good movie, in order to justify its existence.

Telling a spork about the birds and the bees can take awhile.

The first thing TS4 did was give us a flashback as to what happened to Bo Peep (Annie Potts). Now, in real life, between TS2 and TS3, they just decided to drop Bo Peep because Barbie was on board to lend its brand and that is more powerful. They wanted Barbie for the first movie, and they said no, because why would they give their stuff to an first movie studio?

Anyways, that becomes a very relevant plot to the movie now. Because of course, Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and gang are with Bonnie, a young girl, who might have different interests than a cowboy. In fact, in her first day of Kindergarten orientation, she makes a new friend out of trash named Forky (Tony Hale). Surprisingly, this trash creation is somehow able to come alive, but he doesn’t identify as a toy, and this causes a lot of conflict.

Woody takes it on his own to make sure that Forky doesn’t try to kill himself, for the betterment of Bonnie. Because damn it, Woody just wants to make his child happy, even if he isn’t actively played with.

This leads them on an adventure, leads us surprisingly back to Bo Peep, and through a lot of weirder places.

Also featuring the returnees of Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Blake Clark, Don Rickles (but barely because he died), Joan Cusack, and Kristen Schaal. But it also features the voices of new toys and people played by Jordan Peele, Keegan-Michael Kay, Christina Hendricks, Keanu Reeves, Ally Maki, Bonnie Hunt, Carl Weathers, and Madeleine McGraw.

Porcelain dolls have really gained their mobility.

Did Toy Story 4 make me cry? Of course it did. Twice! And that surprised me, because reports from friends had them not crying, but I’ve always been an emotional wreck. But remember, just because I cried does not make it a good movie.

Thankfully, Toy Story 4 is a good movie. It “fixed” the issue that I had with the last installment, in that good and bad characters are able to experience growth and change based on their circumstances. Relatively early in the movie you can sort of tell a few things that will happen by the end, and that is totally okay. You can accept the foregone conclusions early enough about a few of them and go on the ride and brace yourself before the end. Knowing where you will end up is fine, if you don’t know how you will get there. And on the journey to the end, it went plenty of unexpected places with surprises along the way.

And honestly, it feels like a great ending. Most people said after 3 that it was the perfect ending and not to mess with it. And a lot of people are saying that after 4. But I disagree, really it feels like the start of a lot of potential adventures on multiple fronts. Because lets face it, in this franchise with a large ensemble cast (that just gets more and more ensemble-y), many many characters were reduced to just a few lines. In fact, some arguably main tier characters had a few moments, but clearly the focus was on Woody and Bo Peep only. Buzz was humorous side character and Jessie had maybe only a few more lines than Slinky Dog.

I will put that there will be money on a Toy Story 5 in the future. Not just side short films for TV like the Toy Story of Terror event. And this time I will look forward to that. Just give me more original movies first Pixar.

3 out of 4.

It is very hard for me to feel unbiased when watching a movie about sexy journalism. Especially if that is a story about real life sexy journalism, not made up who gives a shit journalism (Fake News?). Spotlight was something that felt like a slow burn, but ended so strong, with the good guys (the journalists, always), winning and doing the right thing. All The President´s Men felt very real and told the story about how Watergate was discovered and put into the papers. Another fantastic story.

And now out of nowhere we have The Post. This is a film that didn´t receive hype all year before coming out. It felt like sort of a secret movie, and that is bizarre given that it was directed by Steven Spielberg. Spielberg loves his period pieces, three of his last four films were Lincoln, Bridge of Spies, and War Horse, all of which I have varying opinions on.

Needless to say, given how little I knew about this film (and despite my journalism love), I had very low expectations for this movie. Low yes, despite the people involved. In my eyes, they haven´t necessarily produced the best work over the last few years, and this could be a very mediocre movie overall. (Much like my thoughts of Bridge of Spies).

Actual future footage of the cast waiting around to hear Oscar news.

Back in the 1960´s, the US was in a really shitty war in Vietnam. People were dying by alarming numbers, we were not winning the war, it was dreary, miserable, jungles, and what not. It made a lot of people sad and angry, including a point when people began to protest almost constantly the idea of that war.

One man, Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys), was sent over to record and write and determined that a lot of what was going on was lied about to the American public. Not just current administration, but for decades politicians said one thing and did another. He had access to a private report on the war, of which he slowly made copies of over time. And years later, he was starting to strike.

That is when the New York Times, with several months to comb over the report, began giving details from the report, about how the people were lied to, in their paper, causing quite a ruckus in the US. This in 1971, with Nixon still as president. It caused such a ruckus that Nixon decided to get the Attorney General to put a hold on their articles about these leaked documents, until legal matters could be settled, the first time in American history that the executive branch tried to control a press so overtly.

And that is a big deal.

Enter in the team from The Washington Post. Led by their owner/publisher, Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) who has lived her life in her father´s shadow, and husband´s shadow (who took over after her dad), who is never really sure if she is competent to lead a paper. Their main editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) wants to turn their paper into a national paper, to be a leader not a follower of the times, and wants to use this legal battle to fuel their own paper and report on the same report despite what the president says. It is time to stop toeing the line and to start asking the hard questions. The American people deserve that. Can´t stop that first amendment!

Also starring this grand bunch of actors: Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, Zach Woods, David Cross, Jesse Plemons, and Pat Healy.

Don´t worry, we still get sexy shots of people lounging in offices.

On one hand, given my status as a self proclaimed movie buff, I start to assume I k ow directors personally. Since this movie honestly felt like a secret, I assumed it would be a quick piece by Spielberg that doesn’t have a lot of heart around it. But I was pretty wrong.

Now sure, the beginning was a little bit slow, with some necessary Vietnam backstory and death. Spielberg loves his wars. And then we have to introduce the many players at the Post and their conditions at the time. I know I certainly didn’t know they were not a major player in the 1960’s. It is important but it isn’t sexy.

It gdfs sexy eventually, as we see them sort of luck into these documents with a few individuals with some gusto. But really the second half of the film is where the gold was at. As soon as they get the documents, most of the film takes place over the one day as they look for stories, deal with lawyers, have to convince the board and so on. It was incredibly thrilling! Edge of my seat despite knowing the outcome. The heart and soul were there.

On another note, I was originally really angry at Spielberg for having so many passive lame women characters in this movie. Paulson felt wasted! Afterwards, it was still a bit awkward, but it is clear it was done intentionally as a mini theme. In order for Streep’s personal fears to make more sense, Spielberg constructed these roles to really drive home what was still expected of women at this point in history. It is annoying, but on purpose.

Overall, The Post is a very solid film and less obvious piece of history. I cannot wait for them to start adding on to the Investigative Journalism Extended Universe.

3 out of 4.

The Circle came out earlier this year, with some amount of excitement. It had two big stars in it and it was told to be a modern thriller. Or even a technothriller , a thriller about technology. Ooooh, spooks.

And yet when it came out, it actually created no buzz, was swept under a rug, and forgotten about.

I probably would have never reviewed or remembered this film, if it wasn’t for my review of The Square. I decided I wanted a mini shape theme. First squares, then circles.

The Circle really enjoys circles.

Mae (Emma Watson) hates her temp job, hates answering calls, without benefits, and fear that she won’t be needed the next day. But her best friend, Annie (Karen Gillan), has the hook up. Annie works for The Circle, a company that you may as well consider to be Google/Apple of this fictional world. The CEO, Bailey, (Tom Hanks) is super famous, he is trying to help the world, and has the sweetest place to work. Annie is high up on the chain, she goes to all the top meetings.

Well, The Circle is hiring new customer support agents. It is what Mae is already doing, but this would be for a legit company, with benefits, helping her out immensely. And of course Mae gets the job! She knocks it out of the park!

She is initially worried about doing a good job and fitting in. She is slow to accept new things, so she finds the culture in The Circle to be overwhelming. Everyone loves doing stuff there, they have groups upon groups, they have so many weekend and night events. She is getting slightly shunned for just not spending more time at work off the clock. When she is pressured enough, she accepts the social aspects of the Circle, starts sharing her whole life, and eventually goes down a path she never figured out before.

But is it good? To be so open? You know the answer is probably know.

Also starring John Boyega, Patton Oswalt, Ellar Coltrane, and Glenne Headly/Bill Paxton as Mae’s parents.

What a goddamn good cup of hopes, dreams, and secrets.

First sad note, both of the people who played her parents totally died this year! Paxton and Headly! Shit, is this movie cursed? Do we have to be on the watch for Boyega, Watson, or Hanks? Oswalt has already had a rough time recently, so I certainly hope he doesn’t get involved with the curse.

When it comes to this film, it is about as subtle was a laughing and dancing clown. It is obvious where the film is going, but somehow it goes an even stupider route to get there. By ending it on a supposed happy note, it seems to have also avoided any longer lasting points about society.

The big shocker event that happens near the films climax is almost laughable. The entire thing could and should have been prevented, it didn’t make sense that it was happening. A goal was achieved, and yet it became excessive for no reason. I wanted to laugh, it became so cheesy. The spiral downward up to that point was extremely chill as well. To refer to this as a thriller, when hardly any sinister things really occur is just lying.

The Circle wanted to be socially relevant and give us something to think about. Well, it was slightly relevant, and I am left only thinking on so many things they could have done to make this movie better.

1 out of 4.

It feels like forever since I have seen a Dan Brown film. Angels & Demons came out in 2009, practically another life ago. I didn’t have to review that film or The Da Vinci Code. I thought the Code was okay, and I sort of likes A&D, but mostly because of Ewan McGregor.

I basically have forgotten these films existed.

But then Ron Howard comes back and says “No! There is more!” I am sure there is more than Inferno too, when it comes to the books, but I don’t even care enough to look it up.

Maybe Howard just got tired of making good movies, like Rush. Maybe he wanted something where someone would do all the leg work in the writing department. Either way, Inferno now exists. And I have to watch it after putting it off for months.

Inferno feels like uncovering a big mystery after thousands of years and opening it up to find out it was just empty.

Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is at it again! Or the opposite of that. As he wakes up in a hospital, in Italy, with no memory of recent events. He was dreaming of the Apocalypse though, which is always a fun time.

His Doctor, Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) tells him he got shot in the head and survived it, which would explain his amnesia. There is also an assassin after him, so they both had better get moving, or more people will get bullets in the head resulting in even more amnesia.

They eventually find a clue left by Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster), a villain name if there ever has been one. He is a billionaire geneticist, and he wants to kill billions of people. Namely he thinks the population of the world has to go down, or else everyone will die. So, being obsessed with Dante, he made a virus called Inferno, that will kill everyone.

Unless, of course, you think…someone were to want to stop it?! Oh no! Who to call, who to call.

Also starring Sidse Babett Knudsen, Omar Sy, Irrfan Khan and Ana Ularu.

Is this the same scene as above? I honestly don’t remember.

Inferno is a wild, chaotic, burning, mess of a film.

From beginning to end, they want to use confusion, instead of mystery, to tell a story and keep you involved. It is convoluted from start to finish, and a cast of one familiar character does not really help myself ever feel grounded.

I honestly found myself halfway through the movie just wondering if I should turn it off. That I should not write a review and instead watch something else. But then I knew that Inferno was so bad, I needed to make sure my review came out, even if it was months later so that future people looking into RedBox would have some clue.

History is exciting. Conspiracies can be exciting. But Brown must have used his best ideas for the first two books, because he is really digging up some less exciting stuff with this movie. Hanks had a pretty bad 2016, yes, I didn’t really like Sully. So hopefully he can turn things around in the future. Play a new role, not a real person, not a sequel. Give me something to show off the acting. Give me something new.

Inferno can go back to hell for all I care.

0 out of 4.

The Academy loves them some nostalgia. That is the only way I can explain why they continually love Clint Eastwood directed films. They elevates the okay American Sniper, and now there is wind out there that they will elevate Sully as well.

I didn’t want to see Sully, honestly. I just didn’t care. I don’t care who was involved, it was a story that didn’t feel like it should be a movie. A guy landed a plane in the water, no one died. Shit, didn’t they make Flight just to sort of go off the good will of the Sully situation?

Yes, this film just seemed like a combination of Flight plus Captain Phillips. You know, plane crash landing, but true story with Tom Hanks.

Yep, plane, water, crashing, it is all there.

Did you hear about the plane that went down? Which one? Oh, the one in January of 2009, that left LaGuardia and crash landed in the Hudson River after it ran into some birds and lost both of its engines. It couldn’t make it back to an airport, despite being NYC an close to about a dozen of them, so the pilot just knew he had to glide it down into the Hudson River. Some people came and rescued them quickly, none of the passengers or staff died. And everyone left happy, giving us a movie!

Just kidding. Some people were angry.

Sully (Tom Hanks) is a long flying pilot, who did what he thought he needed to do. He flew in a war, he was a crop duster, the typical stuff, and he has survived many hard situations, and he survived this one as well. Now the guys in charge are saying he had time to get to a couple different airport and needlessly endangered lives on a hunch. They have computer and other pilot situations! Looks like Sully is fucked. Unless he…isn’t fucked!

Aaron Eckhart is his mustache wielding co-pilot, and it also features Mike O’Malley, Anna Gunn, and Laura Linney. And other people I recognize as minor passengers, but they aren’t important.

Mustaches tend to raise a rating on average a single point!

Somehow like I imagined, Sully ended up being a very simple movie. It is only an hour and a half and even that seems too long. We get to see the crash from their point of view, from an air traffic controller, from flashbacks from news people, from random passengers. Eastwood literally made this movie 90% about this one event and that is it.

We received two flashbacks from Sully’s youth of other situations and training, but honestly, they drag the movie further. The only other aspect of the movie is a couple scenes of investigation threats, and the final conference involving computer and pilot simulations.

My biggest beef with the film is obviously the point of the movie. It is about a true event, technically not a super heroic landing all things considered, and it feels too long at only 90 minutes. This maybe should have been a documentary, a 45 minute one, with some re-enactments. That might have been worth my time. The re-enactments for this movie had some intense moments, but that was about all it had going for the movie.

Sure, Hanks’ acting is fine in it (not extraordinary), Eckhart is okay. But there is nothing really worth writing home about. I don’t see why this film is in the awards talk at all. Hell, final scenes ends on a joke, people laughing, and then a fade to black, like a crappy TV sitcom.

1 out of 4.

Lies have got to be very sturdy. Lies can make a foundation for buildings and relationships, so lies have a lot of use. The more you lie, the more weight it can hold, I guess.

After all, you can have a throne of lies. So they must be able to support your weight and be at least a little bit comfortable.

I just don’t know if I’d trust a bridge of lies. Bridges usually have to hold dozens of cars at once, including the things that cars hold. Those bitches need to be super sturdy.

I’d want more than lies. I’d want some cement too. And I dunno, a couple engineering and psychology students to supervise the mixing of cement and lies. And if that isn’t enough, the actual physical embodiment of lies, to make it mostly a Bridge of Spies. Then it becomes something I’d stand on to hang out and shit.

I wasn’t even considering weather. Snow can add a lot of weight to it all.

In the 1950’s, everyone was afraid there would be a Nuclear Holocaust across the globe thanks to the cold war. Hell, people (including me) still are hugely afraid of this occurring. But back then it was new and caused kids to cry and shit. The information age was rampant, so there were spies everywhere. We sent guys over there, they sent Keri Russell over to us.

They also allegedly sent to us Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). He did some USSR spy stuff. He was also found by the US Government, so everyone in America collectively wanted him dead for being a traitor. But to prove we are better than them, we have to put him on trial with a real lawyer. They settle on James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks), an insurance lawyer who did some criminal stuff in the past. Thankfully, Donovan is a good man and he does the fuck out of his job to defend his client, even if all of America hates him for doing his patriotic duty.

Since this is a true story, allow me to go further. As Donovan is the only man that Abel is willing to trust after awhile, Donovan starts getting used as a pawn by the USA government. He is brought in to try and trade Abel for a captured US Soldier, Francis Powers (Austin Stowell). He has to go to East Germany right as the wall is being built, while the East Germans have captured a US college student, Frederic Pryor (Will Rogers). That is two FPs. I smell a conspiracy. And Donovan wants to get both of them back, and not leave one to torture or worse.

Man, what’s a scumbag insurance lawyer going to do? How bout be a hero! FOR AMERICA! And one Russian spy.

Amy Ryan plays his wife, Alan Alda his boss, and Sebastian Koch / Mikhail Gorevoy are his main negotiating partners. I was going to mention the main US Agent in East Germany too, but I can’t find him on the list at all. Generic white dude.

That perma-frown face, if turned upside down, somehow stays a frown.

Steven Spielberg is the main reason I wanted to see this film. He hadn’t directed a film in about three years, and damn it, I wanted more. Lincoln could only hold me off for two of those years. He is a magical little man that can make phenomenal movies.

With Bridge of Spies, he tried a little bit hard and didn’t come across as honest as some of his past films. Maybe done intentionally, given the subject matter. The filter to make the film look like it was “set in the past” generally bugs me, and this time was no different. Despite the color scheme, the film was beautifully shot. I especially enjoyed the rain scene.

The acting from the big names was acceptable, but Rylance stole the show. Quite a few realistic jokes and an unflinching sense of awareness that nothing he could do could change his situation. Nothing ethical, a least from his point of view. Hanks was pretty good too, but the last third of the film just featured him playing sick with coughing during negotiations. The character itself was annoying at that point, somehow making it seem like he both didn’t care about the exchange and cared more than anyone else.

My overall complaint with the film is that it just felt far too long. The true story subject is quite a long one, but it seemingly skimmed over areas I thought would be more prevalent (court scenes), and spent far too much time on other plot points(the US Pilot training to be a spy, in particular). Thankfully they didn’t also spend a lot of time trying to humanize the college student. The one scene before he gets arrested felt like it was too much already.

A decent movie, but one that only excels in smaller doses and doesn’t feel as grandiose as the subject matter deserves.

2 out of 4.

Before this week, I had never seen Mary Poppins. Classic movie sure, and I of course knew songs and scenes from it, but I never watched it in its entirety. Blame the parents. While watching the movie as an adult, I did find it very odd. The message was clear: money is evil, family is great, but why they chose to enforce that message in the 1960s was beyond me.

That was my main goal for watching Saving Mr. Banks: to figure out what the money and banks ever did to the Mary Poppins author. Oh, and to figure out why she was behaving like a huge bitch.

I didn’t think anyone could be mean to a face like that.

Saving Mr. Banks is supposed to tell the true-ish story of Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) acquiring the rights to a film version of Mary Poppins, from the author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson). Of course because it is a Disney movie about the creator of Disney, don’t expect that much actual truth in the movie.

The one thing that does appear to be truthful is that Travers was very very hard to work with. She was granted script rights, and she used the heck out of them. She didn’t want animation, didn’t want music, didn’t want Dick Van Dyke, didn’t want a lot of things. She was very peculiar over her character, and didn’t want Disney to mess it up.

Everything else that occurred in the film is whatever they wanted to say, presumably to rewrite history. For instance, Disney was a chronic smoker and he never hated it, despite it leading to his death. They made a few tiny references in the movie (a cough every once in awhile) but made sure they never showed him doing the deed. In fact, he had a line calling it a disgusting habit and one he was trying to quit. Riiiiight…

The movie is spliced with the tale of Travers’ early life, when she moved to the middle of no where with her family. She lived in a small house, but had a loving (yet alcoholic) father (Colin Farrell), and a quite annoyed mother (Ruth Wilson). Her stories were based on an actual nanny sent to clean up their home, after a few unfortunate events leaving it in disarray.

It should be obvious that most of her complaints with the original script, end up getting included in the final project. So something has to change by the end of the movie, but is it change that all parties actually agree on?

Also featuring Paul Giamatti as an optimistic driver (strange role for him), Bradley Whitford as the writer, and B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the song writers.

What? You didn’t want a farm story during a Mary Poppins movie movie? Too bad!

After watching the movie, I am unsure how much of it is true, and how much of it is just revisionist history. I mentioned a few discrepancies above, but I also don’t know if the back story on Travers’ early life is accurate. I loved the back story, loved it far more than the other part of the film. It was sweet and it was tragic. It made Mary Poppins make a heck of a lot more sense and give it a more powerful meaning. But given all the other changes, I can only doubt that the past problems are somewhat fabricated as well.

This film is also meant to be a pseudo-biopic for Walt Disney, but since it is such a small part of his wildly successful life, and full of inaccuracies, I wouldn’t be willing to label it as such.

My favorite actor from the movie is surprisingly Colin Farrell, playing the “real” Mr. Banks who needs saving. His performance was incredible, despite being a minor role. But hey, he has impressed me a lot over the last few years with a few of his role choices.

What this film taught me is that the real Travers was indeed really hard to work with, for potentially tragic yet inexcusable reasons. If our current pop culture network existed back then, there would have been tons of negative press thrown her way, with hardly any sympathizers.

Saving Mr. Banks itself will probably mostly just apeal to those who grew up with Mary Poppins in their lives and want to relive the magic in a completely different way.

Part of me was hoping at the end of the movie, when they did the premier of Mary Poppins, that they would show the entire film. You know, secretly turn it into a Double Feature. That would have been truly surprising. But Saving Mr. Banks on its own plays a relatively safe story: one that is very powerful, but also full of deceit.

2 out of 4.

My initial thoughts on seeing the trailer for Captain Phillips:
“Hey, wasn’t that a real story a few years ago? Probably. Is there enough for a whole movie?”

My next thoughts on Captain Phillips after seeing three different trailers:
“Come on, this is already a true story,sure, but why’d they give away the entire movie in these trailers? There is nothing left to tell!”

My thoughts when I saw the run time:
“133 minutes? For fucks sake. It’s just a boat capture and rescue mission. This going to be super drawn out.”

My initial thoughts after watching the movie:
“Fuck. That was good. Even the bad guys were good!”

Bad guys = good. Stay with me here.

Travel back in time with me kiddos to the year 2009. Yes, very far back indeed. Somalia was all sorts of fucked up. Civil war, strife, there are no rules there anymore, just warlords, and they have turned towards piracy. A lot of boats sale around Somalia, and those boats can either A) Have lots of money of valuables on them, or B) be taken ransom to gain money and valuables.

Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks) has a big cargo ship, full of crates, but it is a lot of aid to give to countries in the area. They are big, they are alone, they are a target.

Led by Muse (Barkhad Abdi), his crew of three others (Barkhad Abdirahman, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali) storm the boat to try and get rich or die trying. Like 50 Cent.

And you know. Shit eventually happens. They stall for as long a they can, and try to keep everyone safe and not injured, then the Somalians take Phillips in a life boat and sale back to Somalia for ransom time. This becomes a big national story in America, the president gets involved, and eventually the Navy SEALs are called in. Then stuff really starts to hit the fan.

I feel awkward explaining the story. Im going to stop that. Michael Chernus is the second in command, and Catherine Keener plays Phillips’ wife, but she only has like, one scene in the film.

What’s that you see, Tom? Is that an Oscar for Best Actor you see in the distance?

As you can see, I went into the film thinking it was overhyped. I mean, it just didn’t look appealing. Despite it being a cool story, I thought the story would make for a poor film. And, I was worried about the historical accuracy. We get to see the pirates before they even leave Somalia, when they decide which groups will go out searching for ships, and all of that jazz. Well, one of the four pirates did survive the attack and is currently in prison. I guess he could have told the story and filled in the gaps from their point of view, but I doubt it. Most likely, the movie makers filled in their own gaps to tell a better story. Which is fine, but curious.

Obviously it is so that we realize that these people were humans too, who had their own reasons for doing this, and they aren’t inherently evil. Always a good message to reiterate.

I didn’t go into the movie thinking I would cry, but that sly mother fucker Tom Hanks acted his way into my heart. To me, the movie did start a little bit slow. I was intent on looking for areas to cut, and I think some scenes early on weren’t too helpful and weren’t that interesting. The acting from Hanks looked like it would just be him doing a funny voice and being a panicky older gentleman.

But the second half. Dat second half. Oh man. Basically just after the pirates made it to the ship, the acting from everyone was kicked up a serious notch. I loved the captain of the pirates a lot, who displayed great emotions of fear, anger, and guilt. But Tom Hanks when he was in the lifeboat just crushed every hope I could ever have of being happy again. Okay, that is extreme, but I felt that when it was close to the climax. I was scared. I was sad. I was even sadder after he was rescued and realized he is finally safe. He just. He just acted so fucking well, damn it.

Really, I am not sure how much I liked this movie, but I will give it the 3 just to be on the safe side. It is probably 4 territory, but there is enough small stuff early on to limit it a bit. Still worth the watch solely for Tom Hanks’ ability to pull on those heart strings.

3 out of 4.

And then there is Cloud Atlas.

What? Don’t like that I kind of just started this review mid thought? Well get used to it, if you want to watch Cloud Atlas. Featuring an all star cast, this movie takes place over time and space, to tell a simple message.

And by simple message, I mean you might have to see this movie multiple times.

Just like they might have to give actors multiple roles. For symbolism!

You might be wondering, “Hey, Gorgon Reviews. What the fuck is going on in this movie? It looks confusing! Do I have to think during my movie time? Is it really 3 hours if you include previews? Fuck that noise.”

Well first off, I don’t know what that last part means.

But hey, I can explain the structure. There are six different settings that the story takes place in. South Pacific, 1869, a lawyer goes to settle a transaction (slavery!), but finds himself extremely sick on the way back home. He befriends a stowaway slave, and must fight the poison.

England, 1936, a young gay musician travels to work for an old and dying composer, becoming an apprentice and making his own work entitled Cloud Atlas.

San Francisco, 1973, a crime story involving a young reporter getting a big scoop that things may not be on the up and up at a new nuclear power plant.

London, 2012, no Olympics. The story of an older publisher who gets into some crime trouble, then forced to live in a retirement home where there is no escape. Yes, this is the more comedic storyline.

Neo Seoul, 2144, a story of a clone who escaped her job and learned to develop feelings, knowledge, and become a god.

Hawaii, 106 years after “The Fall”, a goat herder, haunted by his past, has to work with a technologically superior human to figure out where they all came from.

Get all that? Those are rough descriptions of the eras, that have their stories interweaved throughout the movie, sometime simultaneously. If for some reason you didn’t know yet, all of the characters play multiple roles, some of the bigger ones being Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Jim Stugess, Ben Whishaw, and Doona Bae.

Hell, just to confuse you more, some actors play the same character, just in different times of their life. I’m looking at you James D’Arcy. There are other big names as well, with lesser roles, such as Keith David, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon, Xun Zhou, and Hugh Grant. I was personally confused by Mr. Grant, as I only noticed one of his roles when I first saw it, and had my brain convince me that Hugo Weaving was doing a REALLY GOOD Hugh Grant impersonation.

Dude. Bro. The Future Bro. Dude.

Like all crazy movies, this one is not without controversy. Namely the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, because yes, some of the white actors were asian characters in Seoul. They complained of eye make up, and that they should have just found some nice asian actors for the role. You know, making one part of the movie completely different from the others because of people playing one role. But because they didn’t care about Doona Bae wearing white ginger make up, or Halle Berry as a white woman, I am calling their complaints racist and turning the table on them. Get out of her guys.

I actually did make a flow chart on my board, mostly as a joke. I’d suggest only looking at it, here, if you have seen it to avoid any spoilers.

The best way to describe this movie is Intense. There is so much going on, so much kind of connected, and so much feeling. When you are done with it, you are left only with feelings. Unfortunately the plot isn’t perfect, there were things I am still confused on today. I could read the book, but ehhh. There are a lot of themes, most of them relatable, but mostly I think it is about the emotions.

Cloud Atlas is going to be a movie that requires multiple viewings to get the full effect out of it, and I am glad The Wachowski Siblings made it, if only for the large mammal sized balls they must possess.

3 out of 4.