Brave – what’s in a title

(I can’t believe I didn’t review this movie back when I first saw it in theaters but some people* have been interested in my thoughts on the movie so here they are)

I was prepared to like this movie.  Cars 2 had certainly been mediocre.  My father’s line is from Scotland so I always have a fondness for stories taking place there and the star is a redhead, my favorite flavor.  Yes the trailers made me a little concerned that the movie would be rife with clichés, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with those.  Besides, Pixar is pretty good at taking the same ‘ole same ‘ole and turning it on its head.

To really explain how/why this movie bugged me, I”ll have to compare it to one of my favorite movies – How to Train Your Dragon. (and probably a first that Dreamworks outdid Pixar)

Set Ups

The start of each movie could not be more different.  Now Brave’s opening is beautiful and awesome and sweet.  I do like it but it is quite idyllic, opening on a family picnic outing. Meanwhile, H2TYD has a harsh opening in the midst of a pitched battle. Already we can see that Brave will have a more lighthearted, relaxed tone while H2TYD is more oriented towards conflict with the main character nearly dying a couple of times. Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with either set up. However it does show how one could wonder how “Brave” got its title. (unless “brave” is meant as a term for “warrior” as it was once used for native american fighters)

Protagonists

This is probably the biggest difference. Quite frankly, Merida is a spoiled brat. (I found it especially funny that Confused Matthew found her likable when a majority of his complaints about Simba in part 1 apply equally to her.) What does she complain about? Going to school! (fundamentally, that’s what it is) Don’t get me wrong, I hated school as much as anyone, but nobody is making a movie about my childhood (and nobody should). Contrariwise, what does Hiccup complain about? Nearly getting killed. Nearly DYING.

With this in mind, compare the actions of the two. Merida whines about not being able to do anything and everything she wants while ignoring the wants and needs of others around her. On her “weekend” we see Merida run out of the castle without so much as a polite “excuse me” to the servants and ordinary workers she disturbs on her mad dash. Heck, with the crash of the candelabra, we know she’s actually making more work for those helping out her household, but not a care in her head about it.  She does get some pastries for her brothers… about a minute after complaining about how spoiled they are (way to contribute to the problem).  Meanwhile, Hiccup is actually putting in effort to help his people. We see that he feels guilt and shame at the extra messes he causes, not by heedless dashes but by the awkwardness inherent to his being. He wants to help out his people and improve their lives. Yes, it does have a bit of that selfish/selflessness motive that teenagers struggle with at that age, but it’s at least a step beyond being entirely wrapped up in self.

The Culture

This… certainly did not help my acceptance of Brave. The movie uses “fate/destiny” throughout but what are they in this movie, really? Cultural. Expectations. It’s not entirely unfair to call culture forces “fate/destiny” but the terms have been used so much in our collective consciousness as mystical, magical parts of our lives. They are the edicts of the gods. Not just peer pressure. The repeated use of “fate” in this movie instead of “expectations” feels like a sleight of hand effort to make the movie seem deeper than it is. (seriously, watch it again replacing those two terms with just ‘expectations’ or similar and see if it plays as well)

Still, both movies do revolve around this cultural expectation. H2TYD? Hiccup must become a warrior that can defend his village and kill lots of dragons. Brave? Merida has to… get married and lead the people (you know: rule as royalty). One is an actual plot for a movie. The other is an after-school special. Really, what are the consequences for either of them to follow their cultural mandates? Merida: can’t do whatever she wants whenever she wants. Hiccup: dead. That’s what is so disappointing. Usually with Pixar, the stakes are grand and important – or at least, they are relative to the protagonists. Exception? The Cars movies (oh right, their WORST ones).

The Conflict & Solutions

Hiccup is in a bind.  His culture is asking something of him which he cannot be, yet this is a culture which failing to fit in, will result in death (because it’s in a constant, total war state).  His efforts to fit in are actually a source of the constant disasters that could easily lead to an actual disaster in the conflict that gets several of all of them killed.  So really, Hiccup has no choice: he must fit into his society or die.  Thus he applies his mind to figuring out solutions to his lack of strength and later applies that same mind to actually learning and revolutionizing his society.

Merida’s marriage… Ok, let’s back up.  As Stuart Schneiderman pointed out in a recent blog post, arranged marriages were not quite the boogeyman they have been portrayed for so long in media.  Now it can work somewhat if there are outside forces affecting the situation (like Jafar’s evilness and hypnotizing of the king in Aladdin) but that isn’t here.  The conflict, doesn’t work within the movie’s own internal logic.  No, I’m dead serious.  First, because it is made very clear that both parents were in an arranged marriage as well, yet we see throughout the movie a demonstration that they have a fairly happy and decent relationship.  Oh yeah, and if they hadn’t married, Merida wouldn’t have been born! (seems to me that if you want to tear down a social institution, you might consider it just a bit more if it was responsible for your existence)  Second, it’s not even that arranged!  The three prospective suitors are shown and demonstrate a quick skill.  Merida gets to pick the contest for the three.  Easy enough to see that if she did like one of them (as she seems to at first with the 3rd prospect before the fake-out is revealed), she could choose the contest that he would most likely win.  Oh wait, that’s what she DID do (only for herself).  Which means that the whole “conflict” of this movie is just a red herring.  Of course Merida’s political faux pas in the archery contest could have been excused as youthful exuberance and foolishness if she hadn’t already made herself an unlikable selfish brat in the first place.  Then when things go worse she… just goes running off into the woods.  She has to have some wisps show her where to go so she can bully a little old lady who’s just minding her own business (literally) into doing something the lady doesn’t want to.  Oh, and that nearly gets her mother killed or worse.  Even when her mother is acting sick, Merida has to make it all about “me me me”. What’s worse?  There was an easy solution to this.  To Tom Woods quotes in an article:

As Anna Krueger writes, “The issue of child labor is vexing: there are legitimate issues of intolerable working conditions, but employment of children may provide food that prevents a family from starving. In some instances, also, it may provide girls with an alternative to forced early marriages.”

Yes, the movie might have been more interesting and bearable had Merida actually run out and got a job.  Wait, I think that’s what Jasmine was trying to do (another reason why she rocked).  The climax and ultimate solution to Brave, however, was Merida becoming humbled and learning to think about someone else for a change.

Knowledge

This is what broke me.  I was pretty forgiving of the film until this point.

See, what has made humanity the “top” of planet Earth** is our ability to gather and share information.  I spend several hours/years figuring something out or creating a new device, I can pass that on to other people so they can spend less time learning/creating the same thing.

Now H2TYD does this BEAUTIFULLY.  There is knowledge among the vikings.  They pass it on.  Hiccup’s journey is brought on by him realizing he is treading territory nobody else has.  Nobody knows anything about the Nightfury, he’s the first to even look at it.  Other bits about dragon lore are things that people in a total war situation would not be able to learn, especially as a spy network is impossible to install among that enemy.  Even still, Hiccup learns everything he can (he actually seeks it out) and then builds upon it.  In the end, it is a combination of the new and old information combined that allow the vikings to triumph at last.

Brave… apparently in that universe you are born with all the knowledge in the world, then lose it as you get older.  Merida has to tell her mother that the berries she picks as a bear are poisonous.  Even though we saw said mother out on a picnic with her daughter at the beginning of the movie.  Let that sink in minute.  How did Merida know the berries were bad?  Only 2 ways: she tried one once and got sick (at which point she would have been cared for by… her mother! who probably would have found out why her daughter was ill) or she learned it from somebody else.  Now who did we see at the beginning of the movie that was responsible for all of Merida’s teaching?  Her.  Mother. (actually I was going to laugh if it turned out that as a bear, the berries wouldn’t bother her like they would if she was still human)  Then you have the chase through the castle which I will give 2 props: 1) it was a bit funny and 2) some things would probably be overlooked in a stressful moment.  Still, we never once see the adult males apply a modicum of tactics or coordination that you would expect of the same group of warriors at the end of the movie who do use coordinated attacks.  They never try splitting up to corner the “bear” or realize that if it’s trapped on the roof, some should go corner it while the others remain behind in case it runs again.  The whole “adults are clueless” trope doesn’t innately bother me, but I do request that some effort is put in explaining why.

Secondary Characters

The village blacksmith in H2TYD actually seems to like Hiccup and even makes a case for the boy to the kid’s father.  The 3 brothers in Brave, had to be bribed to help their sister save their mother’s life.

Conclusion:

While Cars 1 & 2 might be objectively worse movies, I would rather sit through any of them any day than sit through this again.  Cars(s) were just dumb.  Brave was offensive.  I’m hoping this is only a one off for Pixar and not a herald of a slump to come.

.

*2 of them I mean

**Yes it is debatable

Nate watches Rise of the Guardians

You know, I thought this movie would be ok, but I really enjoyed it.  The best kids’ movie of the year if you ask me (yes, outranking even Pixar’s Brave).

Spoilers are… look, if you’ve seen enough kids’ movies (or just movies in general) there are some very familiar story beats and this movie does hit them.  However, it’s not out of place, it’s organic to the story and the path it takes to get to those beats can surprise you a few times.  So I’ll put a more in depth discussion below the rating, but don’t fret as much about reading something in it.  Some might ask why I’m ranking this one so high when I downgraded wreck-it Ralph for not having a bittersweet ending (and this one doesn’t).  Well Ralph’s movie was organically moving towards a bittersweet ending.  The story of RoG is one which… there is no middle of the road.  Either everything works out or it doesn’t.  When you set up and earn that “perfect” ending, that’s a thing of beauty.

Another concern frequently heard is that this movie might be a little too much like Despicable Me especially with Santa’s elves being like the minions of that movie.  Well… only in the broadest sense.  There is one brief scene that is very minion-ish and one elf in particular comes along the adventure and is very minion-ish in his demeanor.  However, the elves as a whole remain distinct.  They are completely silent, and a bit more mature and “adult” (sort of) than the minions who are often very childish and more mischievous.  You also get a real sense of individuality to the elves that didn’t come off as well with the minions.  There is a grudge match to be held there though.

Voice acting is competent.  Jude Law is the stand out as the villain of the piece; and I would have given my left kidney to have John de Lancie voice the Boogeyman here (esp once you see his powerset).

What I can’t stress enough: the characters (especially the protagonist), are actually likable.  Something I felt was missing too much in Brave. (hm… I seem not to have put up a review of Brave, anyone still interested?)

Sometimes as a joke, I say that a work is “the standard by which all others should be judged” yet here… I mean it.  In a perfect world, this movie would be 3 shells; it would be average, the baseline for every film.  In showing/telling, character arcs, story and action beats, this movie gets it right.  I don’t even want to say it’s perfectly mediocre.  While one can find any number of movies that do any one aspect better than this film, it is hard to find any that are this consistent in its quality (Pixar’s best are probably the closest).  So it’s kind of sad that today, a normally just “good” film, is great when compared with its competition.  Highly recommended for all ages.

3D NOTE: While there are some action sequences and set pieces that might look great in 3D, don’t feel obligated to shell out the $$.

.

(now more discussion without control on spoilers)

Best part about this movie?  That it is unapologetic in its praise of childhood innocence and that this innocence should be protected.  Maybe it just seems high from selection bias, but it seems to me to have been a long time since anything praised the best parts of the human heart unironically.  And that’s what the guardians protect in this world!  It’s not about the children’s lives (though one could read in a subtext about preventing suicide if one wished) but about protecting the children’s hopes and dreams and joys.  The movie also ends with probably one of the best summations of what “faith” is to a Christian (at least, possibly other religions but I’m not as familiar with them).  At the end, Jack Frost says, “Do you stop believing in the sun when it’s night?”  Christian faith isn’t about belief in the absence of evidence.  It’s about believing that the sun will rise in the morning, no matter how dark it is right now.

Again I can’t emphasize how great it is that the main character is likable.  He’s not perfect, he does have an arc, but he’s a character you like being around, that you want to see good things happen to.  The story starts out with him having fun with children, and we can see why (we are shown) he is chosen to be a guardian.  He protects a child (and others) during a madcap sledding run.  He enjoys being with others.  When the traditional “betrayal” and group split happens at the movie’s midpoint, it’s not because of Jack being foolish or selfish, but because he was trying to do the right thing, to actually be a team player (and sucking at it – because he is an amateur).  Of course, that this betrayal engineered by the villain ended up leading to his defeat tickled my writing side.

I liked that the movie juggled subtlety a lot better than many kids’ films.  There is a running them about what a guardian’s “center” is – it’s their “theme”, what they bring to children, etc.  Santa’s and Jack’s are the only one’s explicitly stated (and by that I mean with statements of “my center is…”) while the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny state theirs in more roundabout fashion.  Sandman – who never speaks – never signals what his center is, but considering the ending where he is reborn… one could work it out or debate over it.  The script does that in a lot of places.  Things the kids need to know (let’s face it, when you’re young, you’re not good at picking up subtlety) are stated outright, but there’s plenty implied, shown and enforced.

The movie does great at implying a larger “world” out there while showing us what we need to know.  It doesn’t let the settings get bogged down the grandeur or allow the minutiae to obscure more interesting facets.

And as I implied up above, religious folk will definitely get a kick out of this.  Christians I know will, but other faiths can probably draw something from it as well.  There is a rationality to belief and I’m hoping this movie can give all of us of faiths and atheists a common frame of reference and understanding for discussions.  Not that anyone agrees, but hopefully we can all start grasping where we’re coming from.

Plus, Santa kicks ass.

Nate watches Ralph Wreck-it

Let’s be honest, this movie is pretty much Shrek combined with Reboot.  Which isn’t bad, both of those things are awesome.  Still, when combined, will the result be awesome or horrid?

Actually… awesome.

Well it’s not entirely Shrek, but it does hit a lot of the same points as that movie.  Whereas Shrek wanted to be alone and went on his quest to be left that way, Ralph is forced to be alone and goes on his quest to change that.  The “annoying side-kick” who becomes the friend is… slightly more annoying for me, but one ends up growing to tolerate her.  At least movie makers have learned that if you have a character that’s annoying, it goes down better with the audience if everyone in the movie also finds that character annoying.  You’ve got to reach really bad lows for this to not work (see: Jar-Jar).  And while Shrek was more about overt, racial prejudice, this movie is more about what one might call “professional prejudice”.  (I say this because once Ralph gets away from where he’s known, nobody else really jumps to conclusions about him.)  In a way, I liked that even more (since almost nobody needs to be told “don’t be racist” nowadays).  Grownups will probably find the message poignant in that there’s no shame in a job well done and maybe we shouldn’t look down on people for their work.  In the end, the day is saved because everyone learns to utilize their talents to the best of their ability; a nice touch.

Of course, while kids are liking all the bright colors and poop jokes, parents will be playing a drinking game of “spot the reference”.  You can even see Pong at one point.

Didn’t see it in 3D but even in 2d it looked gorgeous and so I think it may work pretty well in 3D but only at matinee prices.  It is gorgeous to watch how the animators put a lot of work into having the characters act in manners befitting their games.  And the work they put into a lot of the video game worlds (especially where we spend most of our time: Sugar Rush) shows a lot of love.

Yeah, not a lot of surprises plot wise, but that’s ok.  Except for… one thing about the ending which will be down in the spoiler section.  Otherwise, recommended for everyone who plays video games new and old.

One wonders if they’ll do a video game tie-in to this movie.  The only way they should is to have the 3 original games in this movie come on a bundled disc where you play them straight.  Anything else I can guarantee sucks.

.

.

.

.

.

Spoiler:

One of the things that made the fairly standard plot of How to Train Your Dragon memorable was a ballsy ending.  The hero didn’t walk away unscathed, Hiccup lost something, he was scarred by the experience.

When it was said that the Sugar Rush game would be reset when Venelope crossed the finish line, I thought we might have something really bittersweet happen.  Everything would be r-e-s-e-t.  Including Venelope’s memories, meaning that she would not remember Ralph but in the vaguest sense.  I’m disappointed they didn’t go with this and have an ending where either Ralph much watch his friend from afar, her unaware of who he is, or he would have to keep making trips to Sugar Rush and have them reforge the friendship all over again.  Instead the “game reset” did… nothing, really (gave a dress and memories – because Disney has to have their princess).  It was too much of a cop out that nothing changed and that she got to keep super powers in the process… just felt a bit cheap.  If they had went with the ending they were building towards, this would have been 5 stars easy.

Nate’s Taken 2 Looper

A trip home gave me a chance to catch some films with my movie buddies.

Taken 2

Sequels seem to fall along a spectrum.  At one end, we have a sequel that’s pretty much a remake of the first movie.  At the opposite, there is the sequel that’s so removed from the original, the title of “sequel” is questionable.

Taken 2 falls kind of close to the middle of that spectrum but not enough to be a truly great movie.

I did like that the movie acknowledged the previous one and had a lot of plot grow organically from it.  Liam Neeson’s family is trying to recover from the trauma of the kidnapping, while those related to the ones Liam attacked go seeking for revenge.  They also don’t entirely try recreating the first movie, though there are some moments that echo the first.

You can tell the movie’s downgraded to a PG-13 though, and it becomes even more blatant in the final act where the kills are rather mysterious in their method.  I liked that the daughter got to help out a bit and that her help was realistic (she didn’t go all Xena on the terrorists).  The car chase with her driving did stretch just a bit and grow old with some repeated lines and camera shots.

All in all, not bad and recommended to those who did like the first film and want to see more of “what happens after” but not as good or flawless as the first.

.

Looper

This was… interesting.  It’s far less of a sci-fi tale than a morality play that uses sci-fi to examine the more question.  It has a lot in common with Inception in that way except on a smaller scale/budget and with less devoted to the concepts & ideas provided by the sci-fi elements.

Also like Inception, the protagonist in this movie is… well a criminal asshole.  And yet by the end of the movie you find yourself sympathizing with him, wanting him to find redemption.  Even the “villains” of this movie you find yourself feeling sorry for and wishing they could find a happy ending as well.  In some ways, this might be the most Christian movie I’ve seen in awhile, because one can start to see how Jesus could love everyone and wants to see them redeemed.  It’s also the best movie I’ve seen in awhile that delivers a message, without preaching.

Of course the movie does have some violence, plenty of bad language and bits of nudity (this is a story of sinners after all) so only adults should watch.  The effects and cinematography are adequate enough that it doesn’t detract from the story, although Joseph-Gordon Levitt’s makeup effects can be distracting at times.

I admit, this is a movie you don’t need to go to the theatre to watch.  However, I’m glad I went to the theatre for this because it’s a rather creative and original movie.  And I want to encourage Hollywood to make more like these by voting with my dollars.

Nate watches “The Dark Knight Rises”

Well technical problems have hindered my enjoyment of MLP:FiM (in lieu of flowers, send donations to the Derpy institute for self-esteem) so it’s time to review a movie I’m sure both of my fans were awaiting.

The Dark Knight Rises is a small independent film released by first time director Tim Burton and is about an original character, Wuce Bayne – a well-adjusted child taking care of his parents in their old age and…

Hang on, I’ve seem to have mixed up my notes.

Batman Begins was a breath of fresh air after the depressing slate of previous Batman movies.  It set the standards of fans and audience members high.

The Dark Knight obliterated those standards and set new ones so high that Orson Wells’ zombie rose from his grave to shake Nolan’s hand.

So how could #3 be anything but a letdown?

…

BECAUSE IT’S DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER NOLAN – THAT’S HOW!

Spoiler Free Review: If you enjoyed the first two, go see this.  Though you may want to watch the previous two movies for a refresher.  With this film, we can say this wasn’t a trilogy but a single movie split in three parts.  However, it’s not great in the same way the previous movie was great (it’s a different flavor).  #2 was great in that, if Batman had never existed before that movie, if no one had ever heard of him, the movie STILL works as near mythical art.  #3 does work better if you are familiar with the Batty mythos and it does require the previous two films.  Movie2 was a great movie period, movie3 is one long fanservice (and I don’t just mean Ann Hathaway though… she is nice).

I am also VERY appreciative that they made Bane intelligible and cleaned up Christian Bale’s Batman voice (it’s still different, but not as ear-grating).  As someone who has trouble with their hearing and distinguishing words, I was grateful I didn’t need subtitles this time.

One other clue about this movie: If you’re a pretty decent Batman fan, this movie will have no surprises for you. But trust me, you’ll still want to shout “I knew it!” and the payoff is still worth it. Fans of the movies who aren’t familiar with the mythos, might actually be surprised.  So keep that in mind on whether you read ahead or not.

.

.

.

SPOILERS!

This is a great movie, but boy do you feel the absence of Heath Ledger’s Joker at times.  The echoes and tie-ins this movie has to the plots of the previous end the trilogy with a bookended structure: 1 2 21.  As the movie goes on, the references and call backs to the previous movie grow fewer until you can almost forget it.  However, the plot of Bane & Co is to reduce the city to anarchy (I think) and that the Joker has no role in this chaos just feels wrong.

That is my biggest complaint about this movie (and maybe it will be clearer on repeat viewings) but what was the ultimate goal of the villains?  In the first movie it was to drive the city insane and tear it apart.  In the second… Joker didn’t really have a plan (as befitting him).  No really, think about it a moment.  What would have happened in the long run had one or both of the boats blown up?  Riots in the streets?  The toppling of city government?  We don’t know – that’s the essence of chaos and that was the Joker’s goal: to get the least predictable result.  What’s the goal here?  To reduce the city to anarchy and a terror like revolutionary France seems to be it, but then why the bomb?  Yes it was handy for keeping outside interference at bay, but it seems the villains were going to let it detonate at the end regardless.  So… why wait 5 months?  Or were they going to stabilize it and then move it around for another 5 months?

And why permit the long countdown timer?  Because we have to have the “Bat broken and reborn” storyline that always arises when Bane is involved; something that I really wish Nolan had changed for the movie.  Of everything, this strained my disbelief the most.  We start out the movie seeing Bruce physically broken to begin with.  Assuming his doctor had an accurate diagnosis (and Bruce didn’t provide fake results), the man should be even worse off than the Bruce of Batman Beyond.  Indeed, we see him bring back some of the limb braces & aids that we saw briefly in the Dark Knight.  But then Bane breaks his back, and dumps Bruce (clearly without his braces) in a prison.  But then he heals and starts walking again???  With a broken back ON TOP OF previous injuries?  We can barely fix broken backs now with modern medicine, how did a prison doc do it? (He didn’t have Tony with A BOX OF SCRAPS either.)

Last complaint: while I didn’t mind Batman fighting Bane in a semi-boxing match the first time (it made a sort of sense), I was disappointed that’s how he did it the second.  I would have preferred to see Batman fight and strike more strategically.  Especially since Bane surprised Bruce on grounds of the former’s choosing at first, Batman being able to fight on grounds HE is choosing for the second would have been a great chance to show Batman as the great tactical brain as well as brawn.

What worked in the movie?  E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. else.

Some have also talked about the politics of the movie.  While I might often agree with Jonah Goldberg (and I’m picking on him because I’ll have more to say about that link in the future), like previous movies, the only “politics” and “issues” in this one are the ones you bring with you.  For instance, one handy way I’ve found for distinguishing views (at least in America, your mileage may vary by country) is to see who the person/people voicing them dehumanize.  Right-wing (libertarian, anarchist, conservatives, etc) tend to not think of government workers, police, soldiers, etc as people.  Meanwhile left-wing (communists, fascists, liberals, etc) tend to dehumanize the rich, corporations and their ilk.  In this movie, both groups are victimized by the villains and both are shown as people.  This movie is a little uncomfortable in the way it reminds us (ALL of us) that injustice doesn’t become just when it is done to people we don’t like.

Michael Caine, after having fairly minor roles in the previous two, really lets loose in this one.  He may have only two major scenes, but dammit if the man won’t make you cry in both of them.

Ann Hathaway – damn.

I was disappointed that Tom Hardy never got to take off the Bane mask, but he does a lot with his eyes and body.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is AWESOME, and makes you almost wish that we were getting a fourth movie with him, Christian Bale and Ann Hathaway all running around as one big crime-fighting family.

Awesome moments all around, though none quite as jaw-dropping as Batman’s escape from the skyscraper in movie 2.

It’s also interesting how much of the plot in this movie can be considered a rebuttal to the previous one.

But I may have to save that for a later day.  After some more viewings.

Nate watches the Amazing Spider-Man

Well I’ve put this aside long enough. As you can see from one of the categories, I am a casual Spidey fan and rather enjoyed the Rami Renditions. So how did the new movie hold up?

Here’s two reviews with opposite opinions.

Let me sum up the movie in a spoiler-free review this way: the Rami films are an adaptation of the original Spider-man comics. This movie is an adaptation of the Ultimate Spider-man comics. (not literally, but it really has that vibe)

Spoilers! I think there’s only one way to settle this: Old vs New (suck it Nostalgia Critic).

Peter Parker

Look at them up there, do I even need to say it? Tobey doesn’t quite look the part of high schooler (probably why he only spent a portion of the first movie in it) but he definitely looks like a dork/nerd/geek. He just looks like somebody who got punched a lot in school, hell he looks like he needs to get punched. Andrew is… Hollywood dorky: a beautiful person with messy hair. Now don’t get me wrong, by my standard “bloody-face” scale of action stardom, Andrew ends up with a higher score than Tobey (he LOOKS beat to shit by movie’s end). But it’s more than just looks. But it’s more than just looks. The original had one friend (Harry Osborne) and was invisible to everyone else until he got into the bullies’ crosshairs – even the BUS DRIVER picked on him. This new Parker at least associates and talks with Gwen (she knows who he is) which is a huge step up. He also has a skateboard. A skateboard! Dorks don’t ride skateboards! The new did try and show Peter’s intellect more and I did like that they reinforced his powers more (we see him doing “spider stuff” out of costume a lot more). Yet it seems to have come at too high a price. (winner: Old)

Spider-Man

This isn’t entirely fair, as obviously by now the special effects have improved greatly, there were several times in my first viewing where I couldn’t pick out what was CGI and which was stunt work. And since his agility and web-slinging are two of the things that greatly appeal to me in watching Spider-man action sequences (can’t tell you how many hours I put on Spider-man 2 for the PS2), the new wins this hands down. He’s faster in this, more agile and even quippier than before.

But there is one thing I have to go over: the powers. The originals were meticulous in how they established his abilities. We got some telling, then some showing. In the new? Nothing. Oh we see his powers, but we’re not told why a spider would give them to him. Yes, a bit of this reboot requires that you have some working knowledge of Spider-man when you come to it. Not that I mind, but it was a weird choice.

Also, the new has mechanical webshooters while the old had organic. I… think that there’s not really any “best choice” as far as this goes as both have their fridge logics and brilliances. As a rule, I think that when Spidey is in a long-form media (comics, tv shows, etc) mechanical are a better choice while organics should be used in short-form (i.e. movies), but we can discuss this more in the comments. (winner: New)

Love Interest

Poor Gwen. As soon as she’s on screen the first thing anyone thinks is: When does she die? I like Kirsten Dunst (and Mary Jane) a bit more but Emma Stone was serviceable here. (Notice that Spidey seems to have a weird curse? If you’re a naturally blonde girl, you play a redhead but naturally redheads get to play blondes. WTF?) It just seems inevitable that, like Rachel Dawes, we’re going to see the main love interest killed by the arch-nemesis next movie in Spider-man’s version of the Dark Knight. Well you know what? Much as I love MJ, I hope Gwen survives this entire movie run and even marries Spidey in the end. M. Night WISHES he could have a twist that huge. (winner: both)

Villain

Batman Begins taught us how to do an origin story: choose secondary, lesser known villains that emphasize but not overshadow your hero’s beginning. Green Goblin (awesome as DaFoe was) probably shouldn’t have been introduced in the first movie unless the writers were planning an overarching tale with all three movies about the Parker/Osborne war (which they sort of did, but did it half-assed). The Lizard? Basic enough that he could have worked great, but then they had to tie him into Peter’s origin (like Ra’s Al Gul) and threaten the city as a whole (like Scarecrow). They really should have trimmed him up some more, make the struggle more basic and primal. The CG on Lizard is also… mediocre, but then Goblin’s mask is rather infamous as well. Since this series seemed to have been going for a more realistic take, I wish they had made the Lizard less cartoonish (pun intended) if they used him at all. So I think Green Goblin barely wins this as his motivation was at least better and he fit better within his movie. (winner: Old)

Uncle Ben & Aunt May

Again, difference between classic & ultimate. Ben & May were originally… as much as Peter’s grandparents as his aunt and uncle. In the Ultimate universe… they’re more like what we think of aunts and uncles as. (and it is VERY hard to get over that they are being played by Martin Sheen and Sally Field)  Both have their own charm, but I generally prefer the more parental Ben & May to the “cool/hip” ones.

Now as for how Uncle Ben dies…  Both movies improved on the original story.  In both 616 and Ultimate continuity, Ben is shot by a home intruder later to be revealed the crook Spidey let escape.  A flawed moment as the connection between Ben’s death & Peter’s inaction is not very strong (after all, Peter could have caught the thug and then the guy got out on parole for example).  Both movies made the very smart decision of making Ben’s death IMMEDIATE after Peter’s inaction (which increases the guilt).  I slightly prefer this new movie’s handling of it because here Ben runs up and tries to stop the robber (sort of) on his own.  Not only was his death almost a direct cause by Peter’s inaction, but it was also because Ben was acting more of the hero than Peter was – his death was as much of an example as his life was.  (winner: tie)

Secondary Cast

Both movies had absolute show stealers: J.K. Simmons for the old and Denis Leary for the new.  Both of them make it worth going to the movie on their own.  I did like Flash Thompson more in this as he was a bit more of a character than plot device (plus the old one I kept mixing up with James Franco).  I’m hoping that in sequels the makers will play it smart and have Flash become Venom (as he is now in the comics) and leave out Eddie Brock all together.  The new one does have the best Stan Lee cameo EVER (of any of his movies) and… that’s it.  Peter’s parents play more of a role in the new movie, and by that I mean they have a cameo as MacGuffins.  The scene where the “common New Yorkers help Spider-man” was better done in the new or at least less sugary.  Still, there’s no Bruce Campbell.  No Bonesaw.   (winner: Old by wide margin)

Plot

I didn’t hate Spider-man 3, but rather thought it had more plot than the movie structure could sustain.  This film comes VERY close to Spidey 3 overload, but it is saved by leaving several dangling plot threads that… can be left open (some for sequels, some because it’s fitting).  I did prefer how the new movie showed Peter growing more into a general superhero (we see him slowly grow from revenge focused to crime focused)  The new movie also tries to foreshadow everything, though this runs the gauntlet from subtle to too overt (near head-desk inducing).  But which one is more faithful?

Spider-man stories can be accurately described as soap-operas for boys. There’s a lot of drama, a huge cast and it’s all broken up by awesome fights between colorful characters. Which means that it is best suited for long form media (TV shows, comics, etc).  Translating it to movies is going to be a challenge.  Rami went with more of a grander overview.  Thus Mary Jane is the girl introduced in the movies and plays the love interest through all three because she gets Spidey in the end.  The nature of movies doesn’t permit us to play with the Betty/Veronica drama that the comics did.  Rami took the general brushstrokes of Spider-man, boiled them down to their core, and then used that in his movies (to stretch a metaphor beyond reason).  They may not be specifically accurate to the comics, but the original movies were accurate to the comics’ spirit.  In the new movie, things are more accurate to specific moments in the comics (though as a whole it’s more like three comic issues chopped up and spliced together).  So it’s kind of true to the spirit, but in a very superficial way.  You don’t quite feel the heart and passion in the film that pulsed behind every frame of Rami’s.  (winner: undetermined)

All in all I give this:

It’s pretty average as far as most Marvel movies have been of late (especially with Avengers now setting the new standard of judgement).  The spectacle is worth seeing on the big screen, but if your TV is large enough (or you don’t care about the action), I’d wait for a rental.

And now…

Nate’s Fridge Logic Moments from the Movie:

• How many people in New York know of his identity?  His entire school at least!
• Shouldn’t the football pop before the goalpost breaks?  Homework: how much velocity would it need to do the reverse?
• Where does he keep putting all that hair when he dons his mask?
• If Peter is so smart, why did he use “Bing” to do an internet search?

Update: NATE RECOMMEND HULK REVIEW SPIDER-MAN!

Avengers Assemble!

Spoiler Free Review (for the 3 people in the world who haven’t seen it yet)

Some might say this is the greatest comic book movie ever.  In reply, others will wonder how this movie stacks up against the Dark Knight (previous title holder of GCBME).  To compare the movies is like comparing the ripest, tastiest apple ever against the ripest, tastiest orange ever.  Both are great, just in their own ways.

I am a sucker for group comics.  JLA and Green Lantern Corp are two of my favorite series for this reason.  Although not a ready fan of the Avengers, the most important aspect of any group story is that of every member being useful/serving a purpose.  And on that level, this movie succeeds – immensely.

Do you need to see it in 3D?  I don’t think so.  There were a few scenes that might look great in the format, but not enough to warrant the extra $$$.

Do you need to see it at the theater?  Oh hell yes.  Unless you have a SPECTACULAR home theater set up (complete with surround sound), this is definitely a movie worth seeing in full glory – you get your money’s worth.

Background Knowledge?  The only two you really HAVE to see are Thor and Captain America (in that order) whose movies form a sort of mini-trilogy with this one.  If you know the basics of Hulk & Iron Man, you should be able to deal with the rest. (Though I recommend Iron Man 1 for awesomeness and 2 for… Scarlett Johansson in red hair.)

Cheesecake?  Nothing beyond the usual skintight leather outfits and uniforms, so men & women should both find something to enjoy.

.

.

.

Begin Spoiler Discussion:

As I said before, this is the greatest comic book movie of all time.  The Dark Knight is also the greatest comic book movie of all time.  How does this scale work?  Think of one end (the DK end) as one of pure, storytelling quality. It not only perfectly captures to essence of Batman & the Joker but it tells a story that anyone can savor; a story that provokes thought and discussion and self-examination.  It was like the best ’90s comics, that proved comics are a medium that can be used to tell a great story like Shakespeare’s plays, or Dickens’ novels.  In the same way, tDK proved that it can stand tall with greats like Casablanca or Citizen Kane. (yeah I said it)

On the Avengers‘ side of the scale, we have the pure distillation of original, golden & silver age comics.  This isn’t a character study or thought & self-provoking examination.  This is pure adventure – pure fun.  Some days, all we seek are to watch the good guys be challenged, but overcome.  This movie reminds us of why comics took root and grew during the Great Depression.  Comics began as a medium used to spread home like the classics of Ulysses’ and Lord of the Rings.  In the same way, Avengers proved that it can stand tall with greats like Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. (yeah I said it)

The characters are just great.  Since the big three each had their own movies devoted to them, the makers wisely gave us more time with the other three characters as well as S.H.I.E.L.D. as an organization. (Yes, I know Hulk has had two movies already, but how much either of those apply here is… debatable if at all.)  The film makers were smart and took the best traits of both the main Marvel universe and its ultimate version and built the stars from this.  Example: Making Hawkeye a general sharp shooter but with a preference for the bow.  And kudos to them for NOT making Hawkeye useless.  Heck, he’s the only one that Loki forcefully converts to his side and he (the weakest member of the Avengers) proves to be quite the threat.

Though that’s not to say S.H.I.E.L.D. is incompetent.  The film makers also realize that making an organization useless does not enhance the threat of whoever defeats them.  S.H.I.E.L.D. proves to be filled with reasonable intelligent, highly skilled employees which makes Loki’s appearance and routing of them terrifying and excellent proof of just how dangerous he is.

Characters:

Nick Fury – Samuel L Jackson is so perfect I have nothing else to say.

Maria Hill – Lately (especially with the “Civil War” event) this woman has been Bitch #1 of the Marvel universe.  Cobie Smulders plays her… not that way, but of a person trying to do her job the best she can. (plus she looks damn good)  If anything, in this universe I actually wouldn’t mind seeing her and Captain America get together.

Phil Coulson – One of my favorite characters since I saw him in Iron Man 1.  He was competent and calm, with just a bit of a geeky or nerdy air about him, but he was an awesome geek/nerd.  His death damn near made me cry.

Captain America – The other two of the big three are more of the same from their movies, but I wanted to bring up Cap again just because of how good an actor Chris Evans can be.  Everybody hated him as Johnny Storm (or rather, the character was hated), but here he really conveys not only the man out of time, but the noble leader that pushes him into the leadership of the Avengers.  At times Cap seems almost uncomfortable in a setting or his uniform, but when the battle grows heated, his body language grows much more confident.

Black Widow – Scarlett Johansson has far more in this movie than just eye candy (like she had in Iron Man 2) and she may not have a great acting range, but she does the part as good as her looks.  Though of note: Those playing the Joss Whedon drinking game, the waif-fu girl (Black Widow) is chased around by a large, powerful man (Hulk).

Hulk – Steals the show, often.  Of course Mark Ruffalo does a pretty good job as Bruce Banner, but Dr Banner is a hard character to screw up.  No, the real challenge is doing the Hulk itself.  Sometimes, he’s almost the antagonist himself (with Bruce as the protagonist).  Other times, he’s the Id or body’s desires unrestrained.  Both of these interpretations can be… hard for the audience to connect to (though they can work well in other mediums like comics, novels, etc).  So here, they make the wise choice of making it clearer that Hulk is a separate personality: a fully realized personality.  And that personality is very much like a child’s (mind you: a child with near unlimited strength).  And like a kid, when the Avengers treat Hulk like a friend, he becomes their friend.  It’s a nice touch.

Loki – He’s going to be compared against all the great comic book movie villains – but he ends up doing a pretty good job of carving out his own niche, even if at times you want to start comparing him to the Joker or Lex Luthor.

Plot – Basic and straightforward enough for the general audience.  If there’s one thing DC and their big team (the Justice League) does best, is the large scale, comic threats (such as dragging the moon into Earth’s atmosphere to set it on fire to defeat a bunch of aliens – no I’m not making that up).  Marvel and the Avengers work a lot better on the street level, and this movie does a great job in showing us the devastation on New York’s streets; the people the Avengers are fighting for.  Marvel also is a bit infamous for having its heroes constantly fighting, and while the movie might be just a tiny bit forced on this in a few places, on the whole it’s well done and smoothly fits into the story structure.  Plus we know what happens when Thor’s hammer hits Captain America’s shield: Michael Bay is born.

Thank you to everyone involved in the making of this movie.  Thank you for giving us exactly what we wanted this summer: A chance to believe in heroes.

On the “Kentuckism” of the Hunger Games

So I finally got around to seeing the Hunger Games after reading enough about it to have probably written a book report on the source material.

Not that I have read the source, but if you’re interested in reviews that have, I recommend Marzgurl’s 3 part vlog review where apparently all 3 of them have read the source.

I do have to commend this movie for being one of the most “Kentuckian” movies I’ve ever seen. (and I’m not just talking about the two stars from here).

District 12, where the two main characters are from, is a “coal mining” district, and the opening reeks of the Appalachian Mountains in the look and feel of the place.  Even their mentor, a previous winner (played by Woody Harrelson) is shown in one scene with bare feet (a common feature among those from the Appalachians and Ohio Valley).

And all of this leads to what is – ultimately – the biggest flaw of the movie: no religion.

Now, here’s where I explain things to try and prevent a flame war in the comments (also, this all leads up to a larger point, so try to stay with me here).

In general, I could religion in art as I do eating, sex, bathroom duties, etc.  Namely: the Law of Conservation of Detail.  If it’s not relevant to the story or characters, we don’t need to see it.  However, in the world of District 12, with the Appalachian people, we DO need to see religion because it is very much a feature of their lives.

This may be hard to explain to people unfamiliar with the area.  One of the more accurate portrayals would be the Andy Griffith show.  I’m not talking about an evangelical exaggeration of religion – where God must be mentioned every fifteen minutes.  This is a culture where their faith and religion is so ingrained, it’s like the air they breathe: nobody needs to talk about it, it’s simply there, it’s simply understood in thousands of interactions, references, and conversations people have every day.  Katiness wouldn’t be singing a lullaby with her sister, but a hymn (because those are the songs she’s most familiar with).  I’m not saying the mockingjay pin should have been replaced with a cross or anything, that should be the way it is because, like I said, the religion is so ingrained on these people’s lives, they don’tneed to have a trinket or anything expressing their faith.  Their very dialect, dress, everything about them will do that as a sign of their culture.

“But is that needed for the world building here?” Some might say?  Well… let’s drift away for a bit before circling back to here.

There is a question of “why the hunger games”.  Why does the capital engage in this?  In everything I’ve seen and read (and now watched) I think there’s a factor that was overlooked: to keep the districts divided.  The back story is that there was a rebellion once.  Afterwards, the capital, like Minos of Crete towards Aegeus, demands children to be sacrificed from the districts.  Ok… but the capital should have had one other aim: to use the games to keep the districts divided and against each other less they rise up again.  I found the “there is only 1 winner” rule to be stupid, it should have been “there is only one winning district” (meaning that both kids from a district could have always won, but rarely did) to emphasize the distinctions.  This would have also made the movie’s motif stronger drawing on parallels between reality TV AND professional sports (i.e. if they had a line “12 looks like they have some strong contenders this year”).  Instead, we only get one line, towards the end, where a character refers to Katiness not by her name, but by her district number.  That should have been the standard address through the whole film – by everybody. (maybe even referring to B# and G# during training to further the motif)  This was especially apparent when a repeating phrase in the movie is “May the odds be ever in your favor.”  While that works with someone who is supposed to be “neutral” in the games (such as Donald Sutherland), as someone who grew up in the heavy football/basketball fandom South… it would have worked better had each District had its own cheer so when the gaudy lady draws names, she doesn’t say “May the odds…” but something along the lines of “Go district 12!” to further emphasize the division.

Then, to bring it all together, each of the districts should have had their own religion (and all overseen by an agnostic capital).

See, the climax of the movie, or rather a turning point of it, what is arguably the most important point of the plot, is Katiness on the death of Rue.  What I think we’ve sometimes forgotten in this day and age is that once upon a time, you treated someone respectfully according to your own religion/culture – not theirs.  Say a Christian and a Muslim meet on a battlefield, and after a fight, one of them falls.  No matter who the winner was, it would follow thus:

• If it was a bad and dishonorable fight, the loser would be ignored or dishonorably treated per the winner’s religion/culture.
• If it was a good and honorable fight, the loser would be honorably treated per the winner’s religion/culture.

(or at least, these were the ideals – as always when it comes to humans, we probably didn’t fulfill them quite often as we should have)  A Muslim wouldn’t find it offensive for a Christian to perform last rites on them, but understand it as an honor (if anything, they would probably find it more offensive if the Christian tried whatever the Islamic rituals are since the Christian would 1) do it wrong and 2) probably not be authorized as an outsider to do it).

Thus, at Rue’s death, Katiness singing a hymn of her district, putting Rue on a bed of flowers (like they do in her district) and giving the salute of her district (the movie doesn’t explain the 3 finger salute, I couldn’t help but think that if they had shown religion being involved, that could be a “Christian” sign of the Trinity) to the screen and Rue’s district returning a salute of their own religion/culture (and then rebelling) would not only have made the scene even more powerful than it was (and it was pretty powerful as is) but would have explained why the capital was becoming so concerned about the games.  The districts learning to unite inspite of their differences would have given us SOME reason for why Donald Sutherland was as worried as he was (as it is… I’m not sure why he was).

It is still a gorgeous film to look at and has quite a bit to recommend seeing it on a large screen, but more than matinee price is tough to justify.  The biggest flaw of the plot is that numerous references are made about Peter’s strength, but ultimately it never plays out in the games (we do see his painting skillz used).  Like I said above, the biggest flaw of the movie is that it’s “good enough”, but it was so close to being great.  And that’s harder to deal with sometimes than just a bad movie.

Still…

An extra shell for:

And the sheer Kentuckiness of it.

Recommended further reading on the movie:

http://dknowsall.blogspot.com/2012/03/hollywood-babble-on-on-873-what-hunger.html
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/mark-steyn-on-the-hunger-games/
http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the-hunger-games-post-apocalyptic-female-fantasy/

Watching Muppets

Ah the muppets.

I admit to having a soft spot for them (pun intended).  I practically grew up on Sesame Street and watched the Muppets’ Christmas Special (in which Jim Henson himself appeared) every year until we lost the tape.  So the movie is graded on a curve, just like if I was forced to review a movie put on and staring my own family.  Plus it co-stars Amy Adams and she’s so cute it’s hard to hate anything she’s in.

This movie is a lot of fun, a definite return to the muppets’ best work.  Heck, normally I can’t stand musicals (though operas rock) with very rare exceptions.  The rules for the whole thing just never made any sense to me, (so in this song they understand your message but in this song they can’t because it’s like… your thoughts or something?) and while I will admit that maybe if I studied them more, they would be clearer, I am not motivated to put that much work into it.  This movie remains one of those rare exceptions as very quickly the rule of its songs became clear to me: whichever action is funniest.

Now some (like the always awesome Furious D) have accused this movie of being just a bit hackneyed and cliche.  Well I can’t exactly argue with his point, because that is the point of this narrative: one of the most rapid-fire deconstructions and reconstructions I’ve ever seen.  Much of the humor comes from setting up a cliche, and then making the audience guess whether they’ll follow it or subvert it.  Heck, the villain gets his own over the top singing number so it’s kind of hard to be too offended, even as a writer.  BUT (and this is a huge but) such will only work for this movie which is built as a “return/reboot” film for the Muppets.  If any sequels happen, they will have to try new things with their antagonists.

So how does the movie work as a narrative whole?  Well there’s plot holes galore, but that’s kind of the charm, if you’re going to start arguing about them, you may as well argue about how felt puppets are treated like people: You’ve clearly lost all joy in life and just don’t get it.  I only have one real complaint.  In this movie, a new character is introduced (quite well) named Walter.  Him and his brother are the two that have the largest character arcs in the movie, and with Walter, part of it is that time-honored “finding where you belong”.  So far so good (see above for why I let this cliche slide).

spoiler warning

———————————————————————————————————

Part of the climax turns upon Walter filling in an act on the Muppets’ reunion show, but he’s not sure what he could do.  In the end we learn… he can whistle.

…

I mean it’s not bad, but we’ve never seen him whistle once in the film. (or if we did, it was so brief that I had forgotten)  Throughout the movie, it has been established that Walter is THE biggest Muppet fan ever to live.  Then, right in the middle of their big show, Kermit has to run an errand and leaves Scooter in charge (with Scooter panicking since he doesn’t “host”).  The build up was perfect, I expected at any moment: Walter would be the sub-host, the fill in.  Except he doesn’t.  Scooter does end up filling in briefly.  Like I said, you can bend or play with a lot of cliches in your work, but violating character and narrative arcs should only be done in absurdest comedies.

———————————————————————————————————

end spoilers

All in all, I ended up enjoying myself a lot more than I expected and laughing harder than I have at a movie in awhile.  And that’s more than I could ask for.  I’d give it:

Parents, I’d definitely get a copy of this as it’s going to be a lot easier to watch twenty times with your kids than other kiddy fare.

Watching Sherlock Holmes 2

Ah the Dark Sir Holmes.

Wait – no – I mean Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadow.  Though it’s easy to see the mistake.

• Like Batman Begins, the latest SH series had a first installment which utilized a lesser known villain to better establish the hero and the rules these worlds are operate under.
• Like the Dark Knight, the 2nd part of the SH series has the hero’s most famous villain appear to menace him.
• In both part ones, there is a hint or preview of the hero’s most famous antagonist.
• In both part twos, a major character is presumed dead, only to have a later reveal that they’re not.
• I would also say that the improvement from BB-TDK is the same proportion as that between SH 1 & 2.

As I’m not very familiar with the source material, I won’t comment on that (I have some of the stories, but I haven’t got to read them yet) – though a friend of mine mentions that they are pretty faithful.

The movie also contains one of the instances of “ramping” that’s actually GOOD and appropriate – usually.  My golden standard for ramping (and one of the first instances I saw) was from the teaser of the episode “A New World” from the TV show Angel (you can watch it here or read the summary).  Ramping should be used when an action scene involves a lot of details, characters or placements that an audience will need a few seconds to process.  Thus when the scene resumes at regular speed, the audience follows and tracks the action.  At least, that’s how it should be used instead of for pointless “coolness” like in 300.  Sherlock Holmes 2 has a few of those, but not enough to be offensive.

As always the actors are magnificent, with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law possessing the annoying, yet tolerating chemistry that guy friendships do have.  Also it’s nice to see an iteration of Sherlock Holmes which shows Holmes’ brilliance by making the surrounding cast intelligent themselves (something that – at times – annoys me about House).  Watson is quite smart and capable in a fight in a way that’s not necessarily better or worse than Holmes, but different.

All in all, I’d give this movie:

There’s worst things to spend a matinee ticket on.

.

.

.

Spoiler Discussion

I’m not always a fan of mysteries.  I mean thrillers aren’t too bad, but I always have this sense that a mystery story should be one where a reader can figure it out about the same time as the protagonist, that upon rereading, you see how everything fit together and sometimes… this isn’t as effective as it should be.  At times I can’t figure out whether Holmes wants to be a thriller or a mystery (though with the name “Sherlock Holmes” it is usually assumed to be mystery) and the problem is that sometimes it seems like the viewers should have knowledge that they can’t.  Example from the first one: the remote control device.  Now that works for modern audiences because that technology is common place for us, we know it exist and that it’s possible.  If, however, it was an older audience (a contemporary one to Holmes), then it would have seemed like a character was trying to fake a magic trick by… using real magic (yes you can call it tech, but if it’s fantastical enough, it becomes indistinguishable from magic – see Chuck’s (of SFDebris) treatise on technobabble).

In this sequel, we come upon the “face transplant” – something we’re STILL working on perfecting in the modern day (last I heard), much less in the time that this takes place.  Part of me wonders if this was a later decision forced upon the movie makers by the studio.  The entire plot ultimately revolves around this woman’s brother having the face of another person.  But we’re never really shown any reason for him to look different (never any sign of picture IDs).  In this time and place, it shouldn’t have been that hard (especially with the money and power we see Moriarty wield) to have infiltrated a lackey in an appropriate position.  Which then would have made the later attempt on his sister’s life (and a few others) more logical – you don’t want that person to show up and identify the infiltrator.  But if you’ve changed the infiltrator’s face… what does it matter whether his sister (or friends) live?  In fact, making an attempt on their life would just end up cluing law enforcement (or your detective nemesis) onto your plans – which it did.  If they had let that “technobabble” out of the movie, the story would have been tighter and more organic, and rated an additional shell.  As it is, I wish movie makers would think through their story choices more…