Up (Dir: Pete Docter)

I have now seen "Up" twice in three days. On Friday night, per my usual moviegoing routine, and today with both kids and wife in tow. I wanted to share this film with them and laugh and cry and delight with them. This movie is that good and people are soon gonna be spreading the gospel of "Up" bringing friends, family, neighbors to share this film with them. "Up" is a movie about things, big things, scary things, but it also features talking dogs so your whole family will be entertained. It's a blockbuster that respects the intelligence of the audience and continues to display Pixar's masterful storytelling economy. Watch any given Pixar film a few times and you'll be amazed at how almost each line of dialogue or dialogue-free image moves the story forward, works as foreshadowing, and underlines the film's themes.

"Up" is also beautiful. And painful. And exuberant. In its first fifteen minutes we experience most of the life of Carl Frederickson, husband of Ellie, balloon salesman, and dreamer. We see him go from quiet child to crotchety coot in a very short span and the speed with which his life passes is painfully swift. Carl and Ellie make grand plans, but life keeps getting in the way. Soon we are experiencing life alongside senior citizen Carl who decides to fulfill a childhood promise to his sweetheart Ellie and undertake a safari to South America.

Carl turns his home into a sky vessel in a beautiful scene that will have you grinning from ear to ear. As he sets off on his trip, he discovers stowaway Cub Scout Russell, an earnest young man with, like so many Pixar heroes before him, a generous spirit. Their journey very quickly, in what will be a surprise to no one, gets complicated and dangerous.

The film reaches a heartbreaking emotional crescendo in its first act making the standard adventure elements of the second and third seem almost prosaic in comparison. This bothered me less on the second viewing when I was more tuned into the film's comedy, inventiveness, and consistent beauty. I was also able to observe the care with which each image is constructed. The placement of characters and objects on the screen always serves a thematic purpose and decoding these was a real pleasure. There's metaphors aplenty in this tale and unpacking all of them is instructive. I also took the chance to enjoy the craftsmanship, voice-acting, animation, and score. The score, by Michael Giacchino (of "The Incredibles," Star Trek," and "Medal of Honor" game series) is exquisite and will surely prove to be one of the year's best. (I'm listening to it once again as I write this.)

"Up" is a grand achievement that grapples with loss, love, and the utter necessity of connecting and giving one's self to others. It's a brave movie that will make you laugh and cry and not feel bad about it in the morning. Go see this one soon and take someone you love.

Executive Koala (Dir: Minoru Kawasaki)

I'm sure I missed some of the nation-specific satirical barbs in this off the wall Japanese comedy about cutthroat corporate culture and an anthropomorphic koala who may or may not be a killer. To this Western viewer, "Executive Koala" played like an Adult Swim entry with its unfailing, straight faced commitment to the absurd. Trying to cope with the disappearance of his wife, businessman and man-sized koala Tamura attempts to lose himself in corporate negotiations. He increasingly finds himself haunted by memories of violence and develops a tendency to fly into fits of unbridled rage accompanied by blinking, glowing eyes.

I don't want to spoil any of the film's surprises and would advise renters to avert their eyes from the DVD label as it gives away one of the film's best visual gags. Those viewers who complain about the cheap special effects--for instance, the zipper being visible on the Koala's costume--have failed to realize that these are both budget and style choices. Director Kawasaki, who previously brought us "Rug Cop" and "Calamari Wrestler," has developed a cheapo aesthetic and this is undeniable part of the film's charm. Troma fans are sure to be delighted by Kawasaki, but will find a sweeter, more gentle film in "Koala" than those produced by Kaufman.

But a little of this goes a long way and the film's story is too flimsy to be compelling. The film works to a degree as it continually amps up the absurdity, but the plot is a tired retread of Hithcock themes with more concern about style than storytelling. It's DePalma for furries.

Angels and Demons (Dir: Ron Howard)

Howard's latest excursion into Dan Brown inspired Catholi-ploitation is ludicrous, but will not bore you to tears like it's predecessor "The Da Vinci Code", one of the worst films of the decade. I did not read "Code", but while watching the film I was amazed that it was a work that was shaking people's lifelong faiths to the core. It was beyond implausible and stillborn. Its worst sin was not casting doubts on the chastity of Christ, but being unforgivably boring. The film made the mistake of attempting to be both reverent and subversive and failing on both counts. How could a story so ridiculous subvert anyone's faith, and why did such a pulpy, off-the-wall thriller attempt reverence? The movie needed to be zippy in order to distract from its storytelling flaws. Instead it was a slog filled with bad history and stock characters. Brevity is the soul of pulp.

"Angels and Demons" mostly lives by the above maxim--and is far better for it--though it flags in it's waning moments when it steps back to reveal the weight and breadth of the conspiracy at its center. We can't be asked to take any of this seriously, but director Howard pleads with us to try. The story finds Ivy league Symbology--not a real discipline--professor Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) safely back in the classroom after discovering the Holy Grail. (Spoiler: It's Audrey Tatou's reproductive system.) The discovery didn't make him any friends in the Vatican, but they realized he was a formidable opponent. When the Vatican comes under attack from the ancient science loving Illuminati, Langdon is called back into the fray.

When he gets to Rome he sets off on an implausible quest throughout the city that you realize, when the movie pauses to catch a breath, is utterly ludicrous. It's the kind of quest the Riddler set up for Batman where you realize the criminal would be more successful if he stopped leaving clues. But without the clues, there's no movie and no work for adventure loving symbol-nut Langdon. Four men are kidnapped and Langdon must follow an ancient trail that points to each man's whereabouts before they are killed one by one. But really wouldn't the whole endeavor been just as successful if the men had been offed in a secret location not revealed by tell tale statues? The Riddler is insane and needs the game, but the bad guys in this movie are simply craven. Why not more efficiency?

But the film zips along so if you must watch it, you'll be diverted. Its gustatory equivalent would be the eating of a marshmallow. Empty calories, not much taste, but it goes down easy enough.

Star Trek (Dir: J.J. Abrams)

It wasn't until I was sorting through my feelings about the new Star Trek film that I realized how much I actually did care about and enjoy the Trek universe. Star Trek is something my dad loved and so as a kid I tried to love, too. The original show never did much for me as the bad sets, pacing, and dated look of it all kept me at a distance. But in the flashier, bigger-budgeted movies, I found a Star Trek my father and I could both enjoy. Star Trek II and VI are great movies and there are bits in all the rest that I like.

It was "Star Trek: The Next Generation", however, that I really loved--still do--and it made me a lifelong appreciator of the Trek films and shows. The acting was much improved, the special effects pretty good, and the science fiction concepts often fascinating but palatable. I do not consider the Star Trek universe perfect in its entirety--some of the movies are horrible--but I do have a basic grasp of Trek-ness. And JJ Abrams dumps much of what makes Trek tick and delivers a big, fast moving cartoon of a film. As promised, this is not your father's Star Trek.

It's also not very good. The script is an arbitrary mish-mash of sci-fi-ish ideas that allows Abrams to rejigger the Trek-verse however he sees fit. Fair enough. Star Trek has just as many bad entries as good so it's hardly an unassailable canon. But even the worst Trek is usually built around a solid, sometimes tired, sci-fi idea. What does it mean to be human? What is intelligence? Does God exist? Who is God? Should we play God? The new Star Trek pays lip service to some of these themes, but the script mostly moves us from one action set piece to another. It's serviceable and explosion-y, but very typical summer fare. Loud and dumb.

The constant silliness of the film was also a disappointment. The captain's hands swell to enormous size due to allergies. The ship's engineer experiences an Augustus Gloop-esque ride through the ship's water system. An Ewok type figure offers reaction shots to the constant space shenanigans. All this leads to a film that is more "Galaxy Quest"--an actually not anywhere near as good as "Galaxy Quest"--than Star Trek. And the action scenes while big and fast left me cold.

I think I've become immune to the gee-whizzy wham bang attraction of the summer blockbuster. (Save for "Speed Racer.") In an age when CGI has made the depiction of any image possible, when giant explosions, monster fights, and car chases can be more easily generated than filmed, such moments offer little thrill. It all seems so easy to produce and all so transparently fake. How interesting that Pixar, a company whose film's are completely computer-generated, regularly produces the most compelling and humane blockbusters.

There's worse ways to spend a hot summer night than "Star Trek", but far better ways, too. Why not go rent "Wall E" instead.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Dir: Gavin Hood)

"Wolverine" is the definition of superfluous. Synonyms for "Wolverine" include flaccid, tepid, unnecessary. Twentieth Century Fox needed several big releases for the year and "Wolverine" filled one of the empty slots. The film gets by solely on the idea that if it puts Wolverine up on the big screen, no matter the story, we'll go see it. I paid full admission so Fox is obviously on to something. It also throws in lots of mutant cameos which make little sense other than said mutants are also popular and will generate enough goodwill to keep the fanboys happy.

The story of "Wolverine" is standard superhero origin boilerplate. Feeling guilt after the death of a parent, the titular hero flees his home and tries to run away from the pain and burden of his unique abilities. In the process, he wreaks havoc on the lives of those who are kind to him and must ultimately face down his demons in a climactic battle. Every turn of the script, every surprise, is expected and uninspired. Bloated incoherent blockbusters are apt to inspire my hatred--see "Transformers" and "Armageddon"--but this one just inspired indifference. It's a lifeless bore.