Not Too Exciting Movie Reviews

I have four more movies to review, and sadly, none of them were super good.  In fact, all were in the 2-3.5 star range.

"Safe House":  Anybody who knows me, knows that I believe it's not possible for Denzel Washington to make a bad movie.  I think he's one of the best actors in Hollywood, and I've really liked pretty much every movies he's made that I've seen.  Apparently, my hypothesis was wrong.  All you have to do is add Ryan Reynolds and he immediately sucks the life out of the Denzel movie.

"Safe House" is really about Reynolds' character.  He plays a relatively inexperienced CIA agent, Matt Weston, who is in charge of a safe house in South Africa.  When Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) walks into Weston's safe house as a prisoner, Weston's life changes forever, and he is faced with challenges he never expected.

My biggest problem with this movie is the way Ryan Reynolds plays a CIA agent.  He spends the entire movie looking horrified or about on the verge of tears because of what is happening to his character.   My thinking is, "Dude, you're a CIA agent...man up!"  Denzel does a nice job, as always, but he cannot overcome Reynolds' ineptitude.  This is a 2 star movie at best.

"Mission Impossible:  Ghost Protocol":  I've never been a big fan of the "Mission Impossible" series, but the trailers for "Ghost Protocol" looked cool enough that I decided to give it a shot. 

Tom Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt.  Hunt has been in a Russian prison for an unspecified amount of time.  Early on, he is broken out by 2 other IMF agents, and put on a super-secret mission by the IMF secretary.  In fact, this mission is off the books, so they have to invoke "Ghost Protocol", meaning the agents are on their own and are the only thing standing between the world and nuclear war. 

Lots of cool action here, but not much of a plot.  Basically, it's Tom Cruise running around, fighting and shooting things...oh and scaling the side of the tallest building in the world.  Jeremy Renner is added to the "Mission Impossible" team, and he's excellent...is anyone surprised?  After all, he played a character in "Avengers" that was from Iowa.  Just the association with Iowa helps. 

Overall, the cool action manages to elevate this movie to a 3 star movie.  I can't see giving it any higher than this, but it's worth a watch if you are in the mood for mindless action.

"I Am Number Four":  I really liked the book, "I Am Number Four".  After resisting for quite a long time, I watched the movie after hearing from others that it was actually a pretty good movie.  Well, it's not a terrible movie, but I wouldn't classify it as pretty good.

The premise of the movie is much the same as the premise of the book.  Nine aliens and their guardians from Lorien are on earth.  The evil Mogadorians, who destroyed Lorien, are hunting the nine because the nine possess special powers that are a threat to the Mogadorians.  Each of the nine are assigned a number, and a special charm requires that the Mogadorians kill them in order.  As the movie begins, Number Four is with friends as number three is killed.  A scar is burned into Number Four's leg indicating the death of number three, and meaning the Mogadorians will be coming for him next.  So he and his guardian, Henri, flee and end up in Paradise, Ohio where Number Four takes the name John Smith and begins a new life.  But, he quickly gets too involved, his secret gets exposed, and a battle with the Mogadorians ensues.

"I Am Number Four" is a three star movie.  I thought the cast was actually chosen pretty well, though I always pictured John's friend Sam as more nerdy than he was portrayed in the movie.  Plus, it's always tough when you are getting 20 somethings to play high school sophomores and juniors.  Overall though, it was a nice job of casting, especially Timothy Olyphant as Henri.  But in the end, the movie doesn't quite do the book justice, hence my 3 star rating.

"John Carter":  This is the best movie over the four I'm rating, and I'll put this one at 3.5 stars.  My wife actually liked it more than I did, which is rare.  She says that she like it "a lot".  I know Nuke also really liked this movie.  Maybe that set my expectations too high.

"John Carter" is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs "Barsoom Series".  Starting out in 1868, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is in a cave on earth where he has just found gold.  After fighting with and killing an alien, John Carter wakes up to find himself on Mars, which is in the midst of a Civil War.  Due to the different gravity, Carter has the ability to leap extreme distances and possesses great strength.  After some struggle with the aliens who initially find him, Carter comes to the aid of Princess Dejah Thoris in the Civil War.  But how much difference can one "earth man" make in the struggle?  And what of the mysterious Thern (sp?)?

I liked "John Carter" well enough.  It's not fantastically acted, but it's not bad either.  I think where it fell short of 4 stars for me is that it just never quite reached the epic status that I think it was trying to reach.  I am interested enough, based on the movie, to read the Edgar Rice Burroughs series, or at least add it to my list to read. 

So my basic review is "John Carter" is a good movie that falls a bit short of really good, and well short of great.

Audio Book Reviews

We've been doing a lot of travelling lately, and when we travel, we listed to audio books.  Here are four books we've listened to lately...obviously these are all kid appropriate:

"Happenstance Found":  We listened to this one on our way to Aberdeen, SD for a family event.  I was really excited, and since this book is the first in a series, I thought maybe I'd have my next great series to read.  Instead, "Happenstance Found" was slow to develop and really didn't leave me wanting to read more of the Books of Umber series.

P.W. Catanese has a really neat idea here.  Happenstance is a boy, we don't know exactly how old, found in a buried city by Lord Umber and his band.  Happenstance is different in that he has bright green eyes, can see in the dark, and seems to possess a few other abilities.  As they return to Lord Umber's home, we learn that something is following them, and it's not good.  The rest of the tale takes place in and around Lord Umber's home, and we learn a little more about Happenstance, where he came from, and we find out more about Lord Umber. 

A neat premise, but it just didn't move fast enough for me.  I don't plan to read any more books in this series.

"Peter and the Starcatchers":  This is the story that we listened to on the way home from Aberdeen, SD.  This was a really good story by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson.  What Barry and Pearson have done is kick off a series that tells us all the origin of Peter Pan.

Peter and 4 other orphans are being sent away from their orphanage for unknown reasons.  They are told by their caretaker to board a ship called The Neverland, but they don't know why.  On the ship, the boys are treated very poorly, and as the leader of the group, Peter takes to stealing food to make sure the boys have enough to eat.  It's on these food missions that Peter comes to know Molly, and they embark on an adventure to secure a chest of "star stuff" (the little bits of a star that falls to the earth and grants powers to the user), and keep this chest from falling into the hands of the Evil Black Stash.  Along the way, we find out how Peter gains the ability to fly, how he doesn't grow old, and how he and the lost boys end up on that island.  Oh, and we meet Captain Hook for the first time.

I really liked this story!  I'm hoping to read others in the series soon.  There's humor and plenty of action, and it's all offset with a story of friendship and loss.  Just a really good book.

"Holes":  I had seen the movie based on this Louis Sachar book, but David really wanted to listen to this one on our trip to Kansas City so we gave it a go.  With only 4 discs, it was a quick listen and one that David and I enjoyed.

Stanley Yelnants is an unlucky kid.  After being accused and convicted of a crime he didn't commit, Stanley is sent to Camp Green Lake.  Upon arrival he first discovers there's no lake, then he meets Mr. Sir, who informs him that he is to dig 1 hole, every day.  The hole must be as deep and as wide as his shovel, which happens to be 5 feet.  As an overweight kid, this is arduous work for Stanley.  Almost as difficult is finding his place with his bunk mates.  Over time, Stanley gets better at digging holes, and befriends Zero.  When Zero runs away, Stanley goes after him, but with no water or food, how long will the boys survive, and will they break the curse that has haunted Stanley's family for over a hundred years.

"Holes" the book, is very similar to "Holes" the movie.  There's a bit more on the back story of Green Lake and it's inhabitants, as well as the back story on the Warden.  But, if you've seen the movie, you pretty much know the book.  Still, if you liked to movie, I think listening to or reading the book would be worth your time.

"The Graveyard Book":  I don't use this term often, but this Neil Gaiman book is great, not good...great!  I suspect it was even better because we listened to the audio book, read by Gaiman himself.  Such an interesting and compelling story, I couldn't wait to hear what came next.

At the beginning of the story, we happen upon The Man Jack as he's in the process of murdering a family (trust me it's ok for an 11 year old kid).  But, he fails in his task as the youngest boy, a toddler, somehow wanders off before The Man Jack can complete the job.  They young boy wanders up to a nearby graveyard, where it's ghostly inhabitants give the young boy the freedom of the graveyard and decide to raise him as their own.  They name him Nobody Owens (after the Owens family who takes him in), and the mysterious Silas agrees to be his guardian.  But how can a live boy grow up in a place of the dead?  And what will happen if he ever leaves the graveyard with The Man Jack still out there, ready to finish the job?

I loved this story.  It's so interesting to meet the various inhabitants of the graveyard, some dating back even farther than Roman times, and it's interesting to see the influence they have on young Bod (Nobody gets shortened to Bod).  Bod's forays into the living world make for some excitement, and the secondary story about Silas keeps mystery going all throughout the book.  I highly recommend giving this one a read, or even better, a listen.

Let's Just Stop and Think About This

So, I was playing Sudoku while watching Wheel of Fortune on NBC, mainly just to kill time until the Olympics started.  During one of the commercial breaks, I saw a brand new ad by President Obama.  In this ad, the voice over guy is saying that Mitt Romney only paid 14% in taxes on his $20 million dollar income in 2010 and that this is likely less than you pay.  The ad goes on to say that Romney wants to give tax breaks to millionaires while taxing you more. 

There is so much in here.  First, Obama and his team are again playing the "class card" pitting us "commoners" against the "elites."  Further, while this ad is not wrong, it's somewhat misleading.  A quick google search uncovered this article from the Tuscon Sentinel.  First if you look at strictly income tax, the ad is a lie...only 3% of the population pays a higher income tax rate than Mitt Romney.  However, if you include payroll taxes, then the ad is correct, as most of Romney's income is from dividends and capital gains, so he doesn't pay the typical payroll taxes that most people do pay.  Also, in fairness, Mitt Romney does pay a lower tax rate than most people at his income level, largely due to the fact that he donates a significant portion of his income to charity.

Finally, the ad concludes with the point that Romney's tax policy as currently stated will eventually have to result in tax increases on the middle class, but doesn't explain why.  Again, a little digging on google is required, but you can quickly find out that a report by the Tax Policy Center determined that Romney would have to eliminate certain tax breaks that middle class families rely on in order to 1) reduce income tax rates across the board and 2) remain revenue neutral.  Most of the media is reporting this as positive for Obama, but again, a little googling and you can find that Romney's plan isn't specific enough to really draw the conclusions that were drawn.  Forbes has a nice article on this that I think is somewhat fair, though I'll admit Forbes is typically right leaning.

Ok, this is gonna be a long blog, because it took all that background to get to my main point.  The President's point in this ad is obviously to get you 1) mad that Romney pays less in taxes than you (again, debatable) and 2) fearful that Romney's policies will result in higher taxes on you.  Frankly, the President is doing you and I, all of us really, a disservice by this type of campaigning.  In fairness the Romney camp is doing the same thing with some of their advertising, but given that I am conservative, Obama's ads tend to get my ire up more so I'm focusing on this ad.  There are so many conversations we should be having based on the material just in this ad, but both parties have decided that we're too stupid or lack the attention span to hold these conversations.

Here are two examples of real policy debates we should be having based solely on the material in this political ad:

1)  Is it right to tax investment income at a lower rate than earned income?  That's contributing to Romney's tax rate being so low.  I think that would be a good debate to have in the country.

2)  Our tax code is screwed up.  Who among us wouldn't do what Romney does and take all the deductions possible?  We all do it...leaving money on the table is not smart, especially in this economy.  How are we gonna fix the tax code to make it more simple and more fair?  That's a debate some have tried to have in the past and they get vilified...see Steve Forbes and the flat tax.

Sadly folks, we've brought this upon ourselves.  We've become a generation of sound bytes.  If you can't get it in 10 seconds, it's not worth it.  Both candidates for President are just campaigning to us in the way that is most effective, and that's a sad commentary on the state of our society. 

We can change this though, and we have to start now, because I believe our nation is on the precipice.  My personal belief is that if we tip one way, we go the way or Western European Socialism, but if we tip the other way, we can recapture what has made the United States the greatest nation in the history of the world.  But, we can only do this if we get informed and start thinking about these issues. 

How can we do this?  Well, here's what has worked in my life.  First off, stop listening to or reading only one news source.  I had to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, as all it did was made me mad at the other side and being angry prevented my from thinking about what it is I really believe.  Turns out, I believe most of what Limbaugh spouts, but now that I don't listen, I'm capable of articulating it in my own words.  I've also started reading multiple news sources, especially on controversial issues.  You often have to go to Foxnews and MSNBC or CNN to get the entire story, since the new agencies are very biased one way or the other. 

The second thing I've had to do is not let myself react emotionally.  If I do that, I've failed.  Instead, if something hits me emotionally, I stop and think about why that is.  Then I analyze the issue and determine where I really stand. 

Finally, we all have to do some research and get informed.  I spent 40 minutes tonight on this blog and researching.  That's not much time really, and now I'm much smarter on this issue. 

I'm hoping this doesn't come across as preachy.  I'm hoping that it will come across as a plea for all of us, Democrat, Republican or Independent, to get informed and start having meaningful debate on the issues, rather than just reacting with hate or anger towards the other side.  That's the only way we're gonna fix this mess.

This Ad is Wrong...but Educational

Yes, I'm actually sharing an Obama ad...


I'm choosing to share this ad because I think it's educational.  In this 1 minute spot, the President mentions the wealthier or "those at the top" twice, and he mentions the middle class twice.  The reason this is interesting to me is that this is how President Obama truly sees America.  Through his actions and words over the last 4 years, it's clear to me that the President doesn't see us all as Americans.  He sees us a rich or poor, black or white, democrat or republican, etc.  So I ask, who is responsible for dividing America?

I also believe this is the most all-in that I've ever seen a Democrat on class warfare.  Democrats always play class warfare, but with Clinton, Gore and John Kerry, I always felt like it was lip service to win votes.  President Obama, in my opinion, is showing that he is a true believer in the Marxist philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Finally, the President states that the "Top Down Approach" proposed by Mitt Romney is the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place.  We can argue whether or not that's true, but there's no arguing that Obama's approach hasn't fixed anything.  President Obama is not proposing any new ideas from 2008.  His 2008 ideas have resulted in an exploding national debt, unemployment over 8%, a wildly unpopular health care law and fears of a 2nd recession.  You'd think the President would moderate and look to adapt, but instead he's doubling down.  The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expect different results. 

Super Awesome Rib Cooking Method

I've shared my experience with smoking ribs on this blog before, and it's been mixed results.  I was planning to try again today, but then David's baseball team won their first round tournament game, which meant they would be playing baseball today.  But, I had already put the rub on the ribs, so I knew I had to get the ribs made this weekend.  I decided to try cooking them faster than normal and see if I could get them tender that way...as I said, mixed results with low and slow.

So, I fired the smoker up to 250 degrees (that's about as hot as I can get my smoker), and put the ribs on the smoke for 2 hours.  I used St. Louis Style Spare Ribs.  After two hours, I brought them inside and wrapped them in foil.  Usually when I do the foil wrapping, I put a little cider vinegar and BBQ sauce on the ribs.  Frankly, I didn't think this helped at all.   After watching several episodes of BBQ Pit masters, I decided to try something I saw Johnny Trigg (the rib king) do.  I put honey, brown sugar and butter on the ribs, then sealed up the foil and put them on the grill at 400 degrees.  I let them go 1 hour and 15 minutes at 400 degrees...then tested them for tenderness.  To test for tenderness, you pick the ribs up with tongs, and the ribs should bend about 90 degrees but not tear apart.  The tenderness seemed about right, so I glazed the ribs with my sauce for 15 minutes and served them.

I have to say, these were the best ribs I've made, by far.  The smoke flavor came through, with a nice smoke ring.  The ribs were tender, but you could still leave a clear bite mark.  The addition of the brown sugar, butter and honey in the foil wrap added a little extra sweetness that came through nicely.  I'm really happy with the way these ribs turned out.  I forgot to take a picture and now they are gone.  Can't wait to make them again! 

As an aside, I served the ribs with both my traditional sauce and a new spicy sauce that David requested.  To make the spicy sauce, I simply made my traditional sauce, but I doubled the black pepper, then added 1 tsp red pepper flakes, 2 tsp of Frank's red hot and 1/2 tsp of cayenne pepper.  The result was a sauce that hit you with sweet, then followed up with a pretty good burn.  David loved it, and I thought it was pretty good too.

A Nearly Perfect Ending to the Trilogy

Before I review "The Dark Knight Rises", I'd like to say that my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by the shootings in Aurora, CO. 

I saw "The Dark Knight Rises" this afternoon, and loved it!  Of the 3 movies in the trilogy, I think this one is the 2nd best.  My favorite in the series is still "Batman Begins", but I'm a Batman nerd and I just love the way Director Christopher Nolan did the back story.  All three movies in this trilogy are 5 star movies, so it's splitting hairs to say which one is better than the other.  This may be the best trilogy in the history of movies...there, I said it.

"The Dark Knight Rises" begins 8 years after the events at the end of "The Dark Knight".  Batman has not been seen in 8 years, and Bruce Wayne has become a recluse.  But, beginning with his meeting with Selina Kyle (a.k.a. Catwoman), events conspire that bring Batman out of retirement.  When terrorist Bane begins a crime spree in Gotham City, The Dark Knight has to rise to save his beloved city, but has he been gone too long and will he have what it takes to stop Bane from destroying Gotham?

At two hours and 45 minutes, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a very long movie, but it didn't seem like a long movie.  It moves very quickly and is simply packed with story and action.  I know some other reviewers have complained that Christopher Nolan tried to do too much and that, while the movie was good, it would have been great had they left a few characters and plot lines out.  Personally, I think the movie was nearly perfect.  Yes, there was a lot going on, but it was never hard to follow and all fit together nicely.  I did find a couple of plot points a little predictable, but was very satisfied with the ending.

The cast of "The Dark Knight Rises" is fantastic.  Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne/Batman to me.  He's fantastic in the role, but almost takes a back seat to a few of the other characters.  Anne Hathaway is surprisingly good as Catwoman.  I've always liked Hathaway in her roles, but I just wasn't sure if she'd make a good Catwoman.  Not only was she good, but she nearly stole the show.  I say nearly, because Tom Hardy does a fantastic job as Bane.  Hardy will inevitably be compared to Heath Ledger, but the Joker and Bane are completely different characters and it's not fair to compare them.  The rest of the cast, from Gary Oldman to Joseph Gordon Levitt to the incomparable Michael Caine round out the movie really nicely.

I must admit that I'm a bit bummed that we won't get any new Batman movies for a few years.  I'm sure it will get rebooted at some point, but topping Christopher Nolan's epic trilogy will be nearly impossible.  If you liked the first two movies, I think you'll be really happy with this finale.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

On Saturday night, I went to see "The Amazing Spider-Man" in the theater.  I didn't know what to expect, but I saw that it was doing reasonably well on Rotten Tomatoes (73%), so I decided to give it a whirl.  I typically want a movie to be over 70% on Rotten Tomatoes before I'll consider seeing it in the theater.  This is the reason why I did not see "Snow White and the Huntsman" or "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" in the theater.

But I digress.  As I said, I didn't know what to think about "The Amazing Spider-Man" so I had relatively low expectations.  And we all know, the key to a good movie watching experience is low expectations!  I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  In fact, I enjoyed it more than any of the three Tobey Maguire Spider-Man flicks.  I went back and forth on whether this was a 4.5 or 5 star movie...I settled on 4.5 stars.  It's a notch below "Avengers", but on par with the first "Iron Man" movie.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is a reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, and if you saw "Spider-Man 3", you know that this franchise needed a reboot.  Because it's a reboot, we get a retelling of the origin story, but with a few new twists.  Once Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), discovers his calling as a hero, the movie takes off and Spidey has to face off against The Lizard and save New York City from certain doom.

The cast is much better than the original movies.  Andrew Garfield is wittier and more confident as Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire ever played the character.  Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, and is really good in the role.  Some might remember Emma Stone as Wichita in "Zombieland", which is another great movie by the way.  A nice addition was Denis Leary as Police Captain Stacy, Gwen's father.  Leary has come a long way since doing crude comedy in the early 90s.  Martin Scheen and Sally Field sort of round out the cast as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, and both are excellent as one would expect.

The biggest problem with Spider-Man is his villains are sorta lame.  The Lizard is actually Dr. Curt Connors after a science experiment gone bad.  Connors is played by Rhys Ifans, but in my opinion never rises to the level of the great villains (see Joker or Loki).

I'll be very interested to see where director Marc Webb takes a second movie.  We are definitely set up for a second movie in this darker reboot.  Hopefully the momentum from the first movie will be sustained going forward.  Sadly so few super hero movies succeed with sequels, so we'll have to wait and see.