Not So Christmas-y

With the holidays approaching, radio stations are starting to play Christmas music (who am I kidding, there's been Christmas music playing since October).  As I listened, I was struck by the increasingly loose interpretation of the term "Christmas Song" which now includes any song with any reference to winter, presents, Jesus, or the new year apparently.  I'm not just talking about the classics like Joy to the World and Jingle Bells that aren't about Christmas, but have worked their way into popular Christmas culture, but things like Linus and Lucy and My Favorite Things from The Sound of Music.  The mention of snowflakes and brown paper packages does tend to evoke some holiday-esque imagery, but the song is about scared little kids being comforted in a thunderstorm.  I guess we could pretend it's a blizzard and then at least it could be a winter type song, but in all actuality, based on context from the film or play, the song was written to take place in the late spring or even summer, so, not really a Christmas song in any sense.
It did get me thinking about how everyone sees things a little differently and if we included everyone's perspective, we get a greater and greater mix of material.  Personally, I'd rather keep things very traditional, with the majority of my Christmas playlist being filled by the likes of Nat King Cole and Bing Crosby and other Crooners from the greatest era of song writing; back when people where famous for singing, not performing.  That traditionalism has crept into my film selections for Christmas as well, with Rankin/Bass Productions behind almost half of my "must watch" list each season.  Other front runners in the annual list are A Muppet's Christmas Carol, The Polar Express, A Charlie Brown Christmas, It's a Wonderful Life, and my guilty pleasure, Jingle All the Way.  Yeah, I don't know why I like it either.  A few years back, I considered adding Die Hard to my list.  I love the film, and would love to watch it at least once a year, but, I just couldn't get myself to believe it was a Christmas movie.  At it's core, there's nothing Christmas-y about it.  Maybe you disagree, but I'm thinking, like the songs I was confused by on the radio, just because something is remotely associated with the holiday or holiday season does not mean it's a holiday song, or movie.
This brings me to my big question.  I made a solid case about Die Hard to a sibling and they asked back, "Does that mean Home Alone isn't a Christmas movie either?"  So, what do you think, is Home Alone really a Christmas movie, or simply a movie that takes place on Christmas?  Comment below if you can make a case either way.

Cinderella (2015)

Last night I watched Disney's Cinderella (the live action one that just came out, not the animated one from the early days of Disney).  I was impressed, delighted and amused by the film, but found it at times to be a little heavy with it's less than subtle moral (have courage and be kind). While a great moral, and the the simplicity with which it's stated is refreshing, it is referenced at least a dozen times in the film, often when only one attribute or the other would be sufficient.  If the character's about to do something they're afraid to do, they need only remind their self to have courage, and if they're struggling with whether to help someone, they only need remember to be kind.  That being said, from a parent's stand point, the oft repeated phrase could certainly be valuable as a motif to use around the home.  I know if every child I worked with felt the need to have courage and be kind, then my life and the lives of their peers would benefit tremendously, but I feel the film may try just a little too hard to preach.
The film also tries a little too hard for action and excitement, where the story of Cinderella really has only one real potential for adrenaline.  This is of course as Cinderella flees the ball.  However, we're faced with a fencing match, a run away horse, and a pumpkin that almost suffocates Elle and her fairy godmother.
Even though the film does try too hard at times, there are some real treats in this production.  Some great homages to the original, several incredibly emotional moments, and a great development of the prince's character (in case you didn't notice, he didn't have one in the last version).  I love that in a world that's trying to add darkness to the heroes and understandability to the villians in almost every movie that comes out, Cinderella remains truly good and untainted.  I love that magic and reality are carefully balanced, giving us the chance to believe once again that there might be a little magic in the world after all.  I love the fabulously crafted animal characters which, though obviously cgi/motion capture at times, are as good as most, and are quite lovable (though I could have seen way more of Lucifer, he was the best casting choice of the whole film, in my opinion).
Finally, the film is a great update to the classic story.  Hopefully a new generation will grow up knowing and loving that beautiful, humble, lovable girl that can't keep her shoes on her feet.  Hopefully those of us that already love the story now can learn a little more about our beloved characters and enjoy a bit of nostalgia at the same time.  I know I did.  I laughed, I cried, and I believed just a little bit more by the end in love and in magic.  Of course, that's what Disney does.
I don't personally know if I'll be purchasing Cinderella.  If I find it for a good price, I will, but it may not be worth the full price.  I'd still rather watch the original.  Maybe there'll be a Blu-Ray combo pack of the two.  I'd get that.  If they team up with Fox and include Ever After as well, I'd definitely get it.  Highly recommended to fans of the first film, and to children everywhere, Cinderella is a more than acceptable retelling of a story that deserves to be told again and again.

Jurassic World

Okay, so it's no secret that Jurassic World is well on it's way to breaking a lot of records for big summer block busters.  It's not really that shocking, honestly.  Of the top twenty highest grossing films currently 3/4ths of them are sequels, prequels, or shared universe type films.  In other words, all of us movie goers love familiarity and nostagia.  When we go to a movie and are thoroughly entertained, we want more.  We want to see what happens next, how our favorite characters evolve, and especially how the world we've been immersed in moves forward, usually after some potentially world altering events.  Jurassic Park was such a film, I wanted to know if the Park would ever re-open, how palentology would change, if the technology would ever be used in other ways or for other reasons.  How would the government begin regulating things if they keep getting out of hand?  Would people start thinking the Flinstones was about the future instead of the past as dinosaurs became more and more common?  Okay, maybe not that last one, but I'm sure most of us finished watching Jurassic Park for the first time (or the twentieth time) and wondered.  I feel that's a good thing; no one wants to end a movie without being exposed to at least one thing that's thought provoking enough to keep you at least a little curious.  Sure, there are some late night comedies and explosive action flics that try intentionally to keep you from thinking too hard about anything, but most films should invite wonder and curiosity even after the credits role, and those films, if they created an interesting enough film to keep you thinking about it and wondering the what if's as you walked out of the theater, generally do well with sequels, and some exceptional worlds, like one particular world Spielberg created back in '93, warrent more than a sequel, and become franchises.
Now, there is one huge problem with franchises.  There's this expectation that it has to do everything that the previous films did, but bigger.  I mean, how did one little lightsaber duel in A New Hope become several lightsaber duels, including one with a robot dude with four lightsabers at once in Revenge of the Sith?  How did a couple quarter mile races turn into cars jumpingfrom one sky scraper to another and parachuting out of planes in the Fast and Furious movies?  Dr. No ends with James Bond taking out just a few guys, Skyfall ends with him blowing up buildings and helecopters and countless bad guys.  I don't know about you, but when I'm lookiing forward to a new film in a given franchise, I'm not thinking, "I sure hope there are more explosions and it's even more exciting than the last installment."  I'm usually thinking, "I hope it stays true to what I loved about the franchise so far."  I imagine that's normal.  But there's obviously a few people out there who can only be happy with bigger, louder, more extreme films.  And apparently they just happen to end up in all of Hollywood's focus groups.
Don't get me wrong, I love how visually rewarding some films can be, and for films that depend on visual effects more than story, that's just great.  I'm just always a little disappointed when something that I'd really like to have a great story ends up being just a bunch of big explosions or something like that.  Why does that whole world have to be at stake for a film to be good?  What happened to movies like Jaws where it's just a few guys trying to do the right thing for a small town?  Okay, I think my rant is over, now it's time to actually talk about Jurassic World.
You might expect me to start by saying how the story ws a little weak and it just sold itself out for some bigger dinos and more fatalities.  Sure that's true, but I'm mostly interested in the fact that Jurassic World was belittling the same trend that gave it the biggest opening weekend of all time.  Here are some of the concepts openly discussed in the film.  First, there's the talk about they need a new attraction every once and a while to keep interest (some may argue it was the wait between installments that made Jurassic World such a big hit, but look at most big franchises like the Avengers movies and Fast/Furious), then they talk about they need bigger dinosaurs, especially with more teeth, and that's drilled home by the kid that rattles of how many teeth each predator has, obviously more is better (teeth could be anything, but I'm thinking explosions, body count, car chases, gun fights, and such fall in that category), and finally, they actually talk about how the dinosaurs aren't really dinosaurs, they're just entertainment tools.  What movie in it's right mind goes out of its way to remind its audience that all the monsters are just designed to look scary without regard to actual reality?  And then makes billions off of all those people that just don't care.
I don't know if I find it more ironic or brilliant, but it certainly is a little of both.  Jurassic World tells the audience that it's pandering to them, and doesn't even appologize for it.  The whole series has followed the one uping pattern.  T-Rex was the big guy in the original, but only threatened a few people, but by Lost World, he was running through city streets.  Then JP3 brings in a bigger dinosaur.  World follows right along and gets an even bigger guy, and equips him with bigger brains and a handful of apparent superpowers as well.  Why not.  I've not counted, but I'm pretty confident that it has the highest body count as well.  Everything is bigger there is plenty of excitement throughout.  What more could you ask for?
Critisism for this film mostly centers around a couple key points, lack of scientific accurcy or consistency, poor story line or side stories, and of course, there are always people that complain about one or two scenes that ruined the movie for them.  I feel that all of these arguments are valid.  The story wasn't perfect, and was less than perfectly executed.  There are some plot holes, contradictions, and other issues.  There is at least one scene that I personally think should have gone differently.  No, it's not a perfect film. I am forced to ask though, if this was a stand alone movie, if Jurassic Park had never happened (don't cry, it's just hypothetical), would any of us care?  I think two things are forcing us to look at Jurassic World far more critically than we would otherwise.  One, it's not as good as Jurassic Park, but since very few adventure films in the history of film are as good as Jurassic Park, why should we care that this one isn't. It's the least dissappointing follow up to the original film to date, so why worry that it doesn't meet the highest standard available?  Second, it's made a bunch of money.  We're talking top ten status if it keeps up it's pace.  Do we really want a generic summer blockbuster to sit in the ranks with films like Avatar and Titanic?  Then again, Furious 7's up there as well as a couple of the Transformers sequels, so apparently, that's the way the world is going.  As they would say on Jurassic World, the audience wants more teeth.
Overall, I loved Jurassic World.  I will be purchasing it, and recommend the same to all.  There are some intense scenes, of course, and some language.  Some of the deaths are a little more gruesom/intense than previous films, but if you are comfortable with the series thus far, there should be no surprises regarding content from this one.

Fast 7

Okay, so I'm not a car person.  I like a car more for how it looks than for what's under the hood.  Not that I don't like having a little power under my hood or that  I drive at or below the speed limit at all times (my wife and my driving record can attest to that).  Still, I've loved the Fast and Furious films from the very first one.  I think I especially liked the relationship between Brian and Dom.  I've often been the good kid in my group of friends, and I can relate to being torn between what you're supposed to be and your loyalty to your friends.  No, I've never been a cop that's friends with a gang of criminals, but still I've connected personally to Brian.  So, when Pul Walker died before filming ws complete, I almost convinced myself that I wouldn't want to even see Fast 7.  Obviously, I never really was going to let myself go through life not knowing how everything pans out, so I hit the theaters and here's what I thought.
First and foremost, I'm pretty sure that the only film in this francise that has plot somewhat as a strong point would be the original film (well, the remake of the original film, to be exact, but we aren't including the 1955 film, which has nothing to do with the modern franchise).  Plot was obviously not a concern for the last couple installments, and Fast 7 does little to redeem the writting staff.  I could go on for at least a couple paragraphs about how ridiculous the plot is at times.  Serriously, it starts with the bad guy monologuing to his comatose brother about the future being a reflection of the past in a hospital that he just basically destroyed in order to encourage the doctors to take good care of their patient.  I don't know about you, but if I was worried about my brother in the hospital, the last think I'd want to do is blow the hospital up.  Now, instead of taking care of his brother, the staff is dealing with the dozens of trauma patients he just handed them, plus there's probably materials and resources they won't have now that have their building was destroyed.  For someone that's supposed to be a genius, he sure does some unintelligent things from time to time.  Anyways, bottom line, rather than coming up with a believable and perfectly logical plot, Fast 7 is more concerned with how they can top driving a tank down the freeway and taking down a plane.  Each film has driven (pun only slightly intended) itself to out do the one before.  Heck, they had to bring in Dwayne Johnson, 'cause,  you know, Vin Diesel just isn't big enough.  So, this film features such improbable sequences as parachuting cars and cars jumping from one skyscraper to another.  Apparently, they had Brian state early on in the movie that cars don't fly just so they could prove that he's wrong.  So, yeah, there's not a terribly realistic plot, but, if you've made it this far, you obviously don't care that much.  But, on the flipside, Fast 7 delivers several thrills that are still intense and exciting after almost 100 years of action films.
Visually, Fast 7 is everything we've come to expect from the series.  There's lots of awesome cars driving really fast and plenty of crashes and even the occational explosion.  Really, is there anything else we really need from a car movie?  Okay, so there's only one actual race, and it's not even really a plot point, but there are lots of chases and, as mentioned before, flying cars.  There's enough intensity that I found myself holding my breath a couple times waiting to see if so-and-so would make it or not.  There's a couple new locations, so we don't get too tired of LA, and martial arts, parcore, street fighting, and gun fights to make sure we don't get too tired of just car chases.  All in all, it's a great action film, with plenty of excitement and it certainly has it's place in the franchise.
For the last four films, the challenge was tying in the flop that was Tokyo Drift.  Finally, we've tied it in and gotten past it.  Though Tokyo Drift still kind of feels like an awkward third wheel in the series, it's now at least relevant to the rest of the films and that's an acheivement.  That being finally accomplished, the franchise seemed at first to be back on track to go where ever it needed too, but the death of Paul Walker threw a curve ball, and in addition to wrapping up the Tokyo Drift tie in, it had to write out Brian.  I knew it was coming and every time he was in any sort of danger, I was convinced it was over for him.  I was honestly still expecting something to happen after the bad guys were all beat and everyone was just relaxing.  When they didn't (spoiler alert?), I was so happy and pleased that the writers realized they don't have to kill someone for them to not be in future installments. If anything, I'm most pleased with this installment of the franchise for the tasteful and respectful way that they said goodbye to Paul.  I must admit I cried through most of the last scene.  It was a beautiful farewell, and though I'm sad it was necessary, I'm so glad at how well it was done.
I mentioned earlier that my favorite thing about the series is the relationship between Brian and Dom, and now I must say, I'm really not sure there should be a Fast 8.  Hobbs is the natural choice to replace Brian as the more clean cut, professional team member, but Dwayne Johnson is the Rock, and he acts like that.  There's no way he has the acting chops to become as lovable and likable as Paul was.  Introducing a new character would be insensitive if it was too obviously a replacement.  Recasting Brian can't happen, but I'm sure they'll do something.  Universal won't want to get rid of their biggest money maker.  I'm apprehensive, but interested about where things go from here.
So, for those that care to know, there's some language, plenty of violence, but relatively mild and clean, and they, as always, push how much skin they show on the ladies.  I personally will be purchasing the film, but will probably be content to wait until the price drops from it's initial release.  I'd recommend purchase if you bought the rest of the series, but certainly not if you haven't.  It's a good film overall, and worth seeing if you liked the rest of the series, or if you're a fan of Paul Walker.