Prometheus

The hype surrounding Prometheus has long been that it is a prequel to the Alien franchise. Director/Producer Ridley Scott admitted that the movie would be set in the same universe as the Alien series, but Prometheus would have it's own themes and mythology.

At first, Prometheus seems to stay true to the idea that Alien and Prometheus truly are separate entities. The opening sequence is wholly terrestrial with stunningly beautiful scenery. It shows a UFO that is more in line with pop-sych sightings than anything from the original Alien trilogy, and it introduces the first alien creature - one that does not resemble the creepy xenomorph we were introduced to in 1979's Alien.

The first few minutes of film prescribes to the extraterrestrial seeding origin of life theory - drawing heavy inspiration from the ancient astronauts pseudoscience. Scientists Elizabeth (Rapace) and Charlie (Marshall-Green) discover evidence in an ancient Scottish cave that points to a species of aliens that came to our planet and visited every pre-civilized culture on Earth. They interpret this evidence as a road map and embark on a quest to meet their makers.

Enter the Weyland Corporation. These two scientists convince the insanely wealthy Peter Weyland (Pearce), founder and CEO of Weyland Corporation, to fund an expedition to a distant Earth-like planet to seek our creators, beings they call Engineers.

From the first moment you see the craft Prometheus floating through space, the look and feel of the movie begins to seem reminiscent of earlier films in the franchise. The exploration of the domed structures is similar to the reconnaissance in the underground Antarctic pyramid from Alien vs. Predator. The phallic symbolism is as apparent in Prometheus as it was in the first Alien movie. The Engineer ship is the same as the aliens ship. The snakes in the oily goo look like the chest bursters. There are face huggers and ugly baddies. And an android with ulterior motives.

In fact, motives play a huge role in Prometheus. Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaihts (screenwriters) and Ridley Scott gave each of the characters a reason to be on that voyage. Everyone serves a purpose even if that purpose is to be the first to die.

I don't want to spoil too much of the plot or ruin any of the surprises because there are a few decent plot twists that breathe new life into the Alien franchise that was missing in the utterly bizarre Alien Resurection and the hokey pair of AvP films. While Scott would have you believe this movie was intended to be a prequel in only the vaguest sense of the word, the final scene makes it abundantly clear; we are watching something that belongs in the Alien mythos.

Prometheus is a must see for SciFi fans and those that enjoy scary movies. Some of the biggest moments of terror were rehashed from earlier Alien movies so those moments that were intended to be the most frightening have lost a bit of its bite. But there are some genuine shocks and scenes that are still tense and horrifying.

While the movie has superb cinematic sequences and a captivating story, it won't find broad appeal beyond genre fans. It's not the kind of movie that my wife would enjoy and it is definitely not for the squeamish.

Hugo

A common symptom of Aspergers Syndrome is an intense and keen preoccupation with specific subjects that go beyond a hobby - what parents of kids on the autism spectrum call a "special interest." They come and go in phases. My son is transitioning from a passion for animals to an interest in science (convenient that those two subjects are mutually compatible). He has also developed an obsession with maps.

So when I first saw the preview for Martin Scorsese's Hugo - I knew it would be the perfect movie for my Aspie son. An adventure of a boy with a narrow interest in fixing things, a robot that is the focus of all his energy, and the inner workings of a Parisian train station; it fit right in with my son's new fascination with all things scientific. The foreign setting would lend itself to map exploring when we were home again and in front of a computer.

What appeared on the surface to be a visually stunning and potentially emotionally manipulative tale turned out to contain a delightful story.

The movie opens with Hugo - an orphan that lives behind the walls of the Gare Montparnasse in Paris. Hugo steals food to survive, keeps all of the clocks in the station operational, and watches the lives of normal people from behind the clock faces - all while avoiding the grasp of the station master (Sacha Baron Cohen) a stern guard who likes to capture stray children and send them to the orphanage.

He also steals springs and gears and other mechanical trinkets from a grouchy toy-maker (Ben Kingsley) to repair a robot salvaged by Hugo's father (Jude Law). The boy is skilled at fixing things - be it his robot, clocks, toys, or the lives of people who have lost their place in the world.

Along with the toy-maker's goddaughter, Hugo works to interpret a message drawn by the robot - a path that takes him through the history of film to a forgotten legend.

There is an air of magic that surrounds the story - yet it is wholly grounded in mechanized realism with a hint of steampunk romance. Through Hugo's eyes, we see the world full of wonder yet tainted with heartbreak. It presents us a message of purpose - that everyone is here for a reason, that every person is like a part in a machine where there are no extra parts.

My son was captivated by the film, often leaning over and whispering "This is a good movie." I expected him to enjoy the movie - but he learned more than I anticipated. At a point where the early days of cinema was portrayed showing the hand cranked projectors used in the first movies, Christian took his eyes off the screen for the first time and turned to look to the back of the theater - inspecting the projection booth that I'm sure he never before knew existed. I could see the awe in his face coupled with the sudden realization of how movie magic worked.

Like most of Martin Scorsese's work, Hugo is a bit long. It clocks in with a running time just over two hours and bits of the movie seemed lumbering or overly drawn out. At times, it also felt as if I was watching the longest National Film Preservation Foundation PSA ever created. It should be noted that Martin Scorsese founded The Film Foundation in 1990 and is on the board of directors.

But the picture is dazzling. The message of fixing things that are broken and of purposeful reason for existence lends the movie some teachable moments for kids. It is worth watching and (in hindsight) I wished I had shelled out the few extra bucks to see it in 3D.

I recommend you see it. And if the opinion of a seven year old is worth anything - Christian gave it praising remarks. Go, and take your kids with you.

Contagion

What better way is there to wrap up the summer movie season than a film about a contagious disease that decimates our home planet's population? Am I right?

Maybe not, but Contagion fills that role and does it with near expert precision. Aside from a couple of flaws, this film has a lot working in its favor: an all-star ensemble cast, dynamic filming locales, a fantastic script, with a relevant and plausible story.

Let's start with that cast.

There are four divergent yet overlapping stories fleshing out Contagion's plot. First is Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon), whose wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) and stepson die from a mysterious illness. He's been exposed to the pathogen, and must cope with his loss while trying to protect his daughter and prevent her from becoming sick. Next are two CDC doctors (Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet) researching the effects and spread of the virus. Jude Law plays a smarmy blogger/journalist/conspiracy theorist capitalizing on the medical crisis, advertising a cure that doesn't work. And the final story arc involves a World Health Organization doctor (Marion Cotillard) sent to Hong Kong to investigate the source of the virus.

Before we continue, let's make one thing clear. This is not a raging virus movie like Outbreak (1995). That movie was nothing more than a monster movie where the heroes spend all their time figuring out how to win. Where Outbreak was steeped in action, Contagion has more of an intellectual bent grounded more in reality. Rather than following an A + B = C formula (where A is the virus, B is the doctors, and C is a cure), Contagion follows the tragedy and human reaction to a massive epidemic. The media and medical personnel attempt to downplay the scope to prevent a swine flu kind of public panic. The interactions between those in-the-know and the lives of those around them. The tender moments between a protective father and his daughter. The Chinese government trying to hide their possible involvement in causing the outbreak. Political hostages. Government assumptions. Military reaction. Widespread fear. Riots. Looting. Truth vs disinformation.

This isn't an easy movie to watch as the subject matter is heavy and the imagery is gritty and occasionally unsettling. The film makers appear to be aware of this potential buzz kill and break up the dismal prospects of their characters with a few moments of levity (snow angels) and quick one-liners. Some of those one-liners work ("Blogging is not writing. It's just graffiti with punctuation.") and some don't ("Someone doesn't have to weaponize the bird flu. The birds are doing that.")

By no means is this a perfect movie. It is slow paced making it feel longer than its actual running time. And while the film makers made every attempt to keep the story as scientifically accurate as possible, they cast Demetri Martin as one of the scientists engineering the cure. I kept waiting for him to crack a dead-panned non sequitur joke - which was a bit of a distraction from the actual story.

My biggest complaint is that Contagion comes across as a long "you should always wash your hands" PSA. But that one squabble aside, Contagion is an great movie. Bekah enjoyed Contagion and recommends it - which says a lot because she doesn't often recommend movies. My father-in-law said it was a bit "sterile" but overall an excellent film. He also lauded the ending as being a fantastic piece of story-telling (though I will not spoil the ending here).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I never quite understood the original Planet of the Apes movies. Perhaps I was too young when I first watched them, so the cautionary tales against nuclear war my have been lost on me. Or perhaps the morality tales confronting the social issues of the 70s were too complex for the younger version of Nic. Either way, I never considered myself a fan of the movies.

However, the concept intrigued me. It compelled me to re-watch the original series. It made me excited at the idea of Tim Burton working his magic with the mythology surrounding the Apes, but was disappointed by how Burton mangled the ending of 2001's iteration.

With that in mind, I approached this new reboot with cautious optimism.

My fears were unwarranted. The new Apes delivers a satisfying story that pays homage to the original movies, yet stands as it's own entity.

This isn't a sequel and not exactly a prequel. Where Charlton Heston's 1968 Apes played into that generation's fear of a nuclear holocaust, the new Apes capitalizes on bio-engineering and genetic mutation.

The film's protagonist, Will Rodman (Franco) is a genetic neuroscientist researching a cure for Alzheimer's disease with personal interest in hopes to save his father (Lithgow) who is battling Alzheimer's.

After a workplace accident, Will reluctantly becomes the guardian of a baby chimp - the offspring of a genetically altered test subject.

If you've seen the previews - or possess any understanding of the themes of the Apes movies, you know that this baby grows up to be an intelligent chimpanzee.

There is much in this movie to praise. The motion capture work with Andy Serkis (the man who brought LOTR's Gollum to life) is extraordinary. Lithgow's performance is convincing and tragic. The screenwriters created apt reason to feel empathy for the apes and provided enough foreshadowing to understand their motivation. And while Franco's role as a groundbreaking scientist is dubious, the relationship between him and Caesar the chimp makes the movie worthwhile.

Pay attention to the names given to the apes - many of them honor characters, cast members, or crew of the original series. For example, Caesar was the baby chimp born at the end of Escape and the main ape in Conquest.

Icarus - the spaceship that delivered Charlton Heston to the original planet - makes a cameo through broadcast and print news (hinting at a possible sequel). And the Statue of Liberty makes a creative appearance.

Fans of the original movies will find other familiar bits. A few lines of dialog were borrowed from the originals including the notorious "damn dirty apes" quip.

While entertaining and wholly satisfactory, Rise is not a perfect movie. Aside from casting Franco as a scientist, I have a few other complaints about the film. There were a couple prominent clips from the preview that did not make the final cut - a major pet peeve of mine. And some of the action sequences were blurry and/or dizzying.

Minor squabbles aside, Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a fantastic way to end the weekend. I give it nine angry monkeys out of ten.

(and yes, I know, they're apes, not monkeys)

Inception

We've seen the commercials with cityscape curling up into itself for months - hinting that Christopher Nolan is preparing a mind bending adventure for movie audiences. Until recent weeks the previews were vague, only teasing us that Nolan had a few tricks up is sleeve. The secretive strategy was worth the effort as Inception is the kind of movie that dares it's audience to lose themselves in a world of imagination.

Inception now joins the ranks of Fight Club, the first Matrix, and Nolan's own Memento as films to toy with your psyche. The brain boggling story telling is done with surgical precision. While there are flaws in the story those errors are inconsequential as Inception is easily one of the best movies I've seen in years and the kind of movie that reminds us of the magical allure that the theater experience once held.

The story opens up the opportunity to experience shared dreams, and for thieves to enact elaborate heists to steal information from the minds of other people inside the dreamscape. If this was the only psychological aspect of the movie, we'd be left with an unoriginal and wholly disappointing two and a half hours of film. Instead, Nolan weaves in the notion that shared dreams are commonplace and widely accepted as normal by the characters involved. He even gives the act of stealing intellectual property through dreams a name: extraction. The plot device that drives the real story (and lends the movie its name) is the possibility that ideas can be planted into the deepest recesses of a person's subconscious where the subject views the planted idea as one of their own design - an feat called inception.

The protagonist, Dominic Cobb (DiCaprio), is the brains behind the operation. Along for the ride is his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) whose primary job is to research Cobb's targets. The pair needs a new architect - a person who designs and builds the world experienced by dreamers. Dominic once was able to be an architect but now refuses to build dream worlds for reasons explained in the film. They hire and train a new architect (Ellen Page of Juno fame) to help work one final job given to them by a former target (Ken Watanabe).

The mission is plagued with complications of unexpected subconscious projections (including Cobb's dead wife), layers of unreal realms, and warped physics that defy every ounce of gravity we've come to enjoy in the real world.

The character work is portrayed with brilliance, the scenery is beautifully rendered, Nolan provides expert direction that exceeds either of his two Batman projects, and the action is both captivating and bewildering. The fight sequence with manipulated gravitational pulls is one of the greatest action scenes in the past 10 years of cinema.

Inception is two and a half hours of suspense. It is filled with mind blowing surrealism and jaw dropping special effects. This movie about dreams invites us to dream with with the characters on screen. Once the final credits begin to roll your mind will continue to ponder not only the psychological elements of the story, but also the unknown fate hinted in the final frame of film.

This is the single most satisfying film of the year. If Inception does not garner at least one Oscar, I will be surprised. This is the kind of movie more film makers should strive to create.

Carriers

What if?

That is the question superior survival movies ask. Not the “what’s going to happen,” “how did it happen,” or “how are they going to fix it.” Those are awful questions.

Enter Carriers. The world has been ravaged by a highly contagious and horrific disease. Most of the population is dead or dying. What if it was you? What would you do? How would you survive? Carriers only asks questions – it proposes no answers. Instead of answers, it gives you something to ponder.

Two brothers (Chris Pine and Lou Taylor Pucci) are driving cross country to return to the beach house they vacationed at as kids. Along for the ride are Pine’s girlfriend (Piper Perabo) and an upper class stranger (Emily VanCamp). They have rules to follow to prevent getting sick: avoid the infected, sanitize everything, etc. They also carry a healthy supply of bleach, duct tape, and bottled water.

Their strategy is flawed as the meet a father who is willing to do anything to save his daughter (Christopher Meloni), a sick doctor who has given up on finding a cure, a team of professionals with a surefire way to thwart infection, and a pair of armed old ladies.

The cause of the disease is never explained (nor is the cause needed), the fate of humanity and the surviving characters is never resolved, and there is no gratifying conclusion, just a somber journey through despair, isolation, and loneliness.

Graciously the melancholic temperament of the film is broken by bits of absurdity (Pine’s character driving a golf cart across abandoned fairways and sand traps with reckless abandon, and the hyper quarreling between the two brothers). Yet despite the humorous interruptions, you still can’t escape the morally challenging queries.

Would you kill to survive? Lie? Steal?
Would you drink yourself into oblivion?
Would you give up hope? Or would you persevere against insurmountable odds?
Would you be willing to abandon someone you love if you knew there was nothing you could do to save them? Would you force someone you love to make that decision?
What would you feel? Bitterness? Despondency?
Would you break the rules – even if you were the one who created the policy?

Again, the movie does not answer any of these questions. The actions and motives of the characters are never justified or rationalized. You will not walk away from watching this movie with a peaceful easy feeling. While a viral pandemic is the backbone of the plot, the real story is about making tough judgments in the face of ghastly circumstances.

My take: The characters are oversimplified archetypes – the jerk (Pine), the bullied genius ( Pucci), the rebellious girl (Perabo), the spoiled rich girl (VanCamp), and the noble father (Meloni). Despite the stereotypes, the acting is superb. The story is depressing, tainted with disturbing imagery, yet it is engaging and thought provoking.

Bekah’s take: What a depressing movie. It did spark some debate. Would I leave her on the side of the road if I found out she was sick and incurable? She swears she’d volunteer to stay behind and give us a better chance at survival. She wouldn’t recommend the movie.

Final word: A hat tip from me but a frown of scorn from Bekah. My recommendation – if you’re going to watch it be prepared, the movie will give you no reason to celebrate humanity and you might want to consume an entire gallon of ice cream (or some other comfort food) afterwords.