Patrick Ogle

Some Guy Who Kills People is a horror thriller comedy that is making the film fest rounds. It better get a wide release. In part because it is so clever on multiple levels but also because it could make money--which would help other less-than-giant budget films getting out to the people. Insidious should have taught the lesson but perhaps it didn't.

I saw this film at a festival that had a really solid selection of shorts (for the most part). While this was especially true of the shorts even the features were bearable.

This film stood out from this pack even--way out. Produced by John Landis and directed by Jack Perez (Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus) the film manages to be suspenseful, funny, kind of touching and has plenty of splatter--but all of that is pretty tongue in cheek.  Shaun of the Dead (which is a great movie) may spring to mind while watching this but the similarities tend to be more in tone than anything else--the mix of horror and humor. It has nothing to do with Lucy Davis being in the film!

Speaking of cast, the film stars the likes of Kevin Corrigan (The Departed, Pineapple Express etc), Barry Bostwick (in a really funny, movie stealing, somehow channeling Peter Falk-performance), Karen Black as a chain-smoking smart-assed mom, Leo Fitzpatrick (The Wire, Kids, My Name is Earl). It also features a really endearing performance by child actor, Ariel Gade, who appeared on the TV show, Invasion.

All the actors put in memorable performances which are, in part, due to the snappy writing and pace of the film. If you have good writing and a film that moves . It might not be quite on the Shaun of the Dead level but it is, let's say, every bit as good, if not better than Hot Fuzz. You will find yourself laughing more in this film that you will in most films billed as straight up comedies.

The basic plot revolves around a man released from an asylum. He gets a job at an ice cream parlor and lives with his mom. Suddenly a series of rather gruesome murders begin. More alarming for Corrigan's character, he meets his 11 year old daughter from a week-long relationship.

He is an artist, with rather gruesome proclivities, he doesn't talk much but his life changes, for the better, when his daughter enters it. The smart and sometimes surprisingly subtle, writing makes it all work--and the direction and pacing rarely let it lag.

It may be that the film doesn't look like a Hollywood film. But I will point out--neither did Insidious. If anyone got behind this film; if it had distribution and some ads, it might surprise people. It is a humor-horror hybrid that, if it isn't a home run, is at least a solid triple. Come on, this is being written during the World Series, there has to be a baseball analogy.

I meant to write something about Moneyball. Not a review but more a review of reviews on how sometimes you see a movie you think is really good but other people (critics or not) go CRAZY about it. You don’t want to disagree, having LIKED the movie, but you feel like while the movie was good it just wasn’t THAT good.

In my head I refer to this as “The King’s Speech Syndrome” but on to more important matters, specifically the film Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame. This Chinese Mystery/Kung Fu/Fantasy/Period piece has everything you could want in an action film. The film has an albino, a sort of evil empress, a really cute palace official, a wise cracking detective who can kick butt and a fight wherein the hero goes up against several talking deer.

One would think that deer capable of speech and massively outweighing a human would be able to best him but he does have a special mace as a weapon. It is sort of magical.

At this point you REALLY want to see this move or REALLY do not. That is fair enough. This is an old school Kung Fu type movie, excepting that there is a lot of CGI and camera trickery going on. The really old school films didn’t do that (mostly due to the lack of a budget).  I write “kung fu type” because it is also one of those vaguely mythical history films. There is a lesson in it for your average Chinese viewer that the party is not going to be annoyed with at all. But it is also something that isn’t going to annoy a Western audience either—they likely won’t even notice this.

Walking into the theater do not expect Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Hero. This is not of the caliber of those films. If you go, refrain from scoffing, as the people behind me did. I wondered what sort of movie they thought they were going to see.  Raise the Red Lantern maybe? The ads for this could not be CLEARER as to what this movie was going to be.

So shut up and save your sighs for after the movie when you can talk about jazz and tilt your beret “just so.”  Is this movie beyond criticism? Hell no but for what it is intended to be? It is executed quite well. The plot is pretty silly and simple, the dialog—well who knows? I speak no dialect of Chinese but the translation is fairly goofy in parts.

This calls to mind something about the acting. It reminded me of soap opera actors and how those actors are frequently VERY good at their jobs. If you can even say the drivel that makes up the plot you have to be a good actor. Likewise, I think, in highly stylized films like this. The actors who are not good at their jobs just mug and swagger. In this film they mostly give it the old college try and pull it off—within the confines of the plot and this is not Shakespeare.

One rule is often that the amount of actual Kung Fu is inversely proportional to the skill of the actors.  If they cannot act? They better be able to fight. This film doesn’t have wall to wall fights but it does have four or five great action sequences which are well choreographed and shot. The fight sequences were choreographed by Sammo Hung (who needs no introduction to Kung Fu aficionados and the rest of you can Google him). Director Tsui Hark never, NEVER, lets the film drag or get bogged down in “plot.” They use devices from voiceover to titles to tell the audience any details that might lead to a boring conversation—and that is as it should be in a film like this.

We don’t want talk, we want guys fighting deer!

Contagion is a message film and the message is; you are not safe. And when it comes to epidemics or pandemics this is totally true. Your wealth won't help you much. Nor will your current state of health. Sure, those already ill or weak are at greater risk but sometimes the young and hale lack resistance that their elders have.

Ergo, no one is safe.

And then they start rattling of information on how many times we touch our faces in a minute after touching GOD knows what else. Then we hear about fomites (basically anything can carry and transfer an infectious agent). AND then we see subtle shots of everyone touching things and other sneezing, hacking cough sufferers touching those SAME surfaces. If this doesn't make you want to wash your hands more then you are the nut. The film is a masterwork of pacing and making you care about the smallest of characters. Yes, this has a lot to do with fine acting but it also doesn't happen without fine directing as well.

The message "you are not safe" well worth hearing. Every time there is a warming about a potential epidemic that sputters out or doesn't appear it makes people skeptical and lackadaisical which makes the almost inevitable real epidemic all the more dangerous. Between 1976 and 2006 estimates of yearly deaths, in the USA, from flu range from lows of 3,000 to highs of 49,000. . Find out more on flu at the CDC website. Even the regular yearly flu can kill you.

Contagion seems almost a docudrama but it is one with fine acting and a story that never allows it to slow down or get caught up in jargon or scientific mumbo jumbo. Other efforts at "epidemic" film making that have turned out dismally (Outbreak springs to mind) usually side-step reality and into Hollywood crapola. The crapola usually indicates the government CREATED the plague afflicting mankind. Those bad BAD men in Washington! There is almost always an "evil general" in the bad epidemic movies but not in Contagion.

In fact, there are few bad guys in this film--at least among major characters (with one exception). Everyone is trying to do their job and when some of them fail, when they do something "bad," audience members generally cannot blame them.  For instance, we'd all put our families before protocol wouldn't we? Even if that wound up being a disaster? Yes, we would.

That is another way Contagion is realistic. People behave as you might expect. Some loot, some panic, some are led into profiteering they justify, some are brave but none turn into Darth Vader.

But back to hand washing. Hand washing gets knocked but it is one of the most effective ways to keep from getting sick. That includes run of the mill flu or a 1918-style pandemic. 

One place you can find out information on infections disease is the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. They have information and links to information on infectious disease info everyone should know. They also have a section on bio terrorism. I had occasion to interview Michael Osterholm who is the director at CIDRAP during the Anthrax attacks.  In a general discussion on infectious disease he said the one vital thing we can ALL do ourselves is to frequently wash our hands.

If Contagion causes people to do this we may have fewer flu cases this year!

One last not on the film. Often when you see a large ensemble cast of big name actors you can almost SMELL a bad movie. This is not the case in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow has minimal screen time and makes the most of it. Matt Damon, again, proves he can handle just about any role. He can be over the top or he can be subtle and convey emotion with an expression. Laurence Fishburne has the gravitas of Gregory Peck. Jennifer Ehle also stands out as an incredibly brave researcher. I'd use the word "gravitas" but I already did. None of these actors are alone. Everyone in this film makes you care about them--one way or another--without tons of character development. When that happens it means you have a great group of actors.

So The Guard is one of those movies that is well written, well shot, well paced (and I cannot ever emphasize how important this is in a film) everyone in it acquits themselves well but, nonetheless, the entire film could go down in flames based on the performance of one actor.

In this case that actor is Brendan Gleeson. Every other person in this film could be replaced by a long list of actors--and some of them are fine actors--and it wouldn't matter a whit. Gleeson, by the very nature of this film has to load it on his shoulders and carry it. And he does.

Usually when one actor has to carry a film it doesn't bode well for a movie. Think of all the Robin William's vehicles of years past...brr...brrrrr...BRRRRRR. I am going to need a couple of shots now.  Sure, Williams, has done some good work but when a movie was laid on him? What do you wind up with? Good Morning Vietnam or that one where he plays a robot.

There are other examples of this and it usually means, at best, a mediocre movie. In this case all that surrounds Gleeson IS good and the dialog is unrelentingly witty. Often the lead actor is the key to a film but a film can still be good with them being mediocre. Any number of Ben Affleck films bear this out.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that Gleeson's character is shown less via what he says and more by his expression (and how he behaves). What comes out of his mouth in the film is often just "taking the piss out " of people. His character goads people and pokes at them. Don Cheadle's character (and I paraphrase) says "I am not sure if you are an idiot or a genius".

This is a very funny film. That has to be said and should have been said earlier. It is a comedy and rare are the actors who can be funny like this. Few are the actors who can pull of a role like this.

It has hints of films such as Snatch and also other "rural" Irish comedies. But, it never gets "precious." Go to see it, it will likely be out of theaters soon. If you miss it there be sure to put it in your Netflix cue.

So this is late. Shockingly, I went to see a "Planet of the Apes" related movie two weeks or so after it was released. I have no excuse. But it does give me an out on the trap I hoped to avoid when I first began this movie section here.I wanted to avoid reviewing movies. Of course, essentially that is what I have done.

No apologies, not to any of the films I hated or the dumbass who really liked that dull-witted Another Earth movie (seriously....who would leave a COMMENT on a website asking for my "credentials" over such a mundane lifeless piece of shit). See? Already you can tell this isn't a review. But damn, it seems like a BLOG now.

I had hoped to avoid that too. I hate blogs; "Here is what I ate today" or "I am so blessed." That's all great I am only mocking a little but I don't want to do that (I did have some awesome Chinese noodles I bought at an Asian Grocery store on Kimball Ave by the highway in Chicago and I am blessed with incredible good looks).

What I wanted to write about is perception and movies. Usually when people do this they are writing about some tedious Godard film (I admit. Most of the time, I hate Godard). But it doesn't need to be high brow. We perceive the low brow every day. I sometimes get up early enough to watch morning talk shows. I once watched part of that Ozzy Osbourne reality show thing.

The first two opinions I had of Rise of the Planet of the Apes came from professional journalists, writing for a major newspaper. I saw their interaction on Facebook. One reviewed the movie. The other wrote an excellent "history" of the previous "apes" efforts. The latter liked the movie while the former disliked it.

But let's look at this movie, this film of the rise of the apes.

It is about an hyper intelligent ape who becomes that way via testing for a drug aimed at defeating Alzheimers. This is Citizen Kane plot-wise compared to ANY film in the previous series. This could almost HAPPEN. They also make you FEEL something for a CGI ape. It isn't even Roddy McDowell in an ape costume. Who didn't love Roddy McDowell?

The film also make sense within its own parameters. There are no real red herrings. The performances are all, at worst, tolerable. Tom Felton (Harry Potter's Drago Malfoy) is basically used as a device to toss references to the old movies in but that is hardly his fault. John Lithgow delivers a fine performance in a small role, understated but real. James Franciscus...oh wait...he isn't in this. James Franco, is fine. He doesn't get to show his skill as he did in 127 Hours (another Best Actor Oscar robbery, King's Speech my ass) but he is fine. And stop whining about him on the Oscars. He was fine there too. No one is ever really GOOD doing that. Awards shows blow.

So what is to HATE? I get not liking it as a matter of taste. But hate?

I suspect there are a lot of things going on when we hate something that isn't THAT bad. We might have expectations that are unreasonably high. Previews might stoke us up for a film that was never really made. The best bits might ALL be in the previews. The people who edited the previews often seem more adept editors than those who edit the films. If I hit the lottery the preview editors will be editing the entire first Patrick Ogle produced film. I want the ghost of Erik Von Stroheim or Billy Bob Thornton--someone nuts and on a career suicide trajectory--to direct. In this expectation mode we walk in expecting a GREAT film and find a GOOD film and it pisses us off. It makes us HATE the movie.

Sometimes you see a film again and reassess it. But then what does that mean? Did you like it better when you saw it on cable because you perceived merits you missed? Or did you not have to pay $10 to get in and $8 for popcorn (and god forbid it is in 3D because you really get clipped on that).But regardless of the reason you do reassess. I am sure were I too see that horrible Resident Evil IV movie again I could relax and just stare at Milla Jovovich.

It can maybe be chalked up to environment when the shift is only from HATE to mild dislike (theater vs. home). I could discuss LOVING a film like Rise of the Planet of the Apes too, which is equally irrational and possibly based on blind fanboyness, How the fuck did anyone sit through any of that second set of Star Wars films? I wanted to poke out my eyes watching the first one.

Fanboy or Fangirlness are explanation one

But this love could also be based on wildly LOW expectations. Like when I saw 2012, the disaster movie. I had similar expectations to what most people would have watching a 7 hour documentary on Soviet farm collectives made under Stalin. But in 2012 as long as shit was blowing up or Woody Harrelson was on screen? I was tolerant. Harrelson should be in every movie by the way.

An example of where I realized something I thought SUCKED but not only didn't SUCK but was pretty close to great, was Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys.  I saw it in the theater and hated it like poison. HATED it. Then, years later a friend who I hadn't seen in awhile busted it out and said; "Hey this is really good, want to watch it?" I didn't feel like being rude.

And after the second viewing? I thought it was pretty close to a great movie. What happened? Was I just in a piss poor mood at first viewing? I do not recall that. It wasn't that MANY years between viewings. I was an adult in both situations with my tastes pretty well set. I mean I loved Every Which Way But Loose when I was 11 but my opinion was wildly different at 16.

There are no conclusions I can come to on this. It is more a starting point for discussion and thought. It may also just be an excuse to mention Godard and Every Which Way But Loose in the same piece.

Another Earth is proof that not every small film, not every indie film, is a brilliant masterpiece. Some of them are mundane drudgery. It isn't the worst film ever made and that is the best thing you can say about it.  It is professionally shot, it is paced reasonably and it has a basic premise that is interesting.

But, those things alone don't make a watchable film or a film where you won't hear audience members groaning and guffawing at various points (especially the predictable, eye-roller of an ending).

Why do indie films go wrong?

It is often  the same reason better-funded films stink up the screen; someone comes up with an idea but never bother to craft a story beyond that idea. With Blockbusters sometimes they decide to make up for lack of content with explosions. Indies often do it with pretension.

Another Earth has an interesting premise. Another world appears in the sky, apparently inhabitable. As this news is breaking a young woman, Rhoda, played by Brit Marling (who co-wrote this mess with director Mike Cahill), does something terrible throwing her life away and ruining another life in the process. But that is it. There is nothing much else to it. The idea of parallel worlds is given short shrift. The idea of redemption is made to seem as mundane as buying a Big Mac, fries and a Coke.

As the movie moves forward this other world figuratively and literally (it gets bigger in the sky) moves nearer. And the main character, Rhoda enters a contest to fly to this other world. I won't give away more details but, be aware, there are not many more to give away.

The problem here isn't the sci-fi. It is everything else. The most believable thing about the film is that this other, identical earth appears in the sky. Most of the dialog is forced and a great deal of the story is told via voice over "news coverage."  The people just don't do or say what you would expect people to do or say in these situations. The writers, at least, make an effort to explain the most ludicrous part of the plot but it still doesn't fly. How does someone not know who it was that killed his family? A lame explanation is given but it doesn't withstand much scrutiny.

The writing is stilted, the acting so robotic that it is difficult to tell if they are good actors or not (William Mapother was fine on Lost!). Every word out of Rhoda's brother's mouth sounds like it was written for a reality show (until the last words out of his mouth which ring more true).

This is a film that it is difficult to even come up with something to say about it; it is just so mediocre. It is a waste of effort and a waste of time to watch. You will feel nothing watching it and you won't think about it ten seconds after you leave the theater except to say "Damn, maybe I should have gone to see Captain America."

Another irksome thing about the film is that it really thinks it is profound. It oozes self-regard. It is not profound. There is no depth to the concepts approached. It has no charm and I challenge you to give a rat's ass about any character in the film (should you be unfortunate enough to see it).

I think the reason I wrote about this at all, because I take no joy in writing negatively about modest movies, is that I take issue with those who laud every movie that isn't about a super hero. Or any movie that can be labeled as "independent." I have seen a lot of such films in the past five years and their rate of failure is as high as Hollywood. They are not all good, many are mediocre and many will make you want to poke out your eyes (this one isn't quite that bad). The real question is why does this film get the distribution other, much better, films never see? I have seen great films, GREAT ones, that only made it into the dingiest big city art house theaters. How does Another Earth get the exposure they deserve?

I don’t want to write a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Too many others are going to weigh in—calling it a masterpiece or calling it a travesty because they got the color of Professor McGonagall’s undergarments wrong (super fans can be nit pickers, I mean I threw away my Gandalf pajamas after the second Lord of the Rings movie). My reaction to the movie interests me more than a specific review; I found myself disappointed when the movie ended and it wasn’t because the film wasn’t good.

It was because I am sad these films are done.  I had a similar feeling when I put down the last book. There are not going to be any more of them.

The films were not all brilliant perhaps and Order of the Phoenix (the book) was drudgery. And yes, I have read those braying about how J.K. Rowling would NEVER been allowed to sit at the Algonquin Round Table and how she is CERTAINLY not (fill in your favorite writer pompous people name drop and often haven’t actually read-- Proust for instance). But snotty assessments and recommendations led me to read Philip Pullman. It was a good atheist screed. But the story fell apart like the Dune series.

I find J.K. Rowling’s series, as a whole, to be as fine a series of books written for young adults that I can think of. I would add that they stand quite high in the world of fantasy writing as well.

Admittedly, one of the reasons people latch on to even mediocre fantasy as brilliant is that so much of it is dismal. It is always about a magic sword, or ring or douche. The magic douche must be wielded by a special person and have just the right amount of vinegar.

 Yawn. Tolkien did it. He did it better. Please stop.

Occasionally, however, someone comes along post-Tolkien, who captures the imagination and creates a new world, one that transports us. Frank Herbert maybe did it for a bit. Philip Pullman did to I confess, until his ideology overcame his story. But neither of them was really writing for kids and the movies for Herbert and Pullman’s books are also dismal. I hold the unpopular opinion that only the first of the three Lord of the Rings movies is actually good (the other two being moderately entertaining masterpieces of CGI).

So when it comes to fantasy-for young adults or for general audiences-really only the Harry Potter films manage to capture the magic of the books. Sure the first two are pedestrian but they improve they move on and become darker, as the characters grow up and as the stories grow up.  The movie for the book Order of the Phoenix is significantly better than the book. And the books and movies differ in many ways but the filmmakers usually capture the essence.

These films often do something other adaptations do not—at least when they are at their best. They subtract more than they add. If you tried to make a film including extensive screen time for all the peripheral characters in these books the movies would be an unwatchable mess. Some of the side plots have to go, or at least be severely curtained.  Sure there are mistakes and additions and subtractions that may cause fans of the books to scratch their heads a little. But overall?

All I have to say is go try to watch the original Dune.

In Potters world they subtract but they leave it open to the viewers imagination that, somewhere in the world of the movie, these acts and characters are living and acting and breathing off the screen somewhere. So goodbye to this fine series and I am not sure I want Rowling to write anymore. They can stand on their own. Start something new.

Now, let’s just hope The Hunger Games films surpass these.

The movie Buck is a small movie. That term can imply a lot of things but usually it is a movie about something specific, something not grand; there are no cavalry charges, there are no alien space ships or giant earthquakes. Some small movies are good and some are bad.

Buck is good. It is a simple movie about a man who is probably more complicated than he comes off in the film. He is a man who, despite personal physical and mental abuse, repudiated violence in his own life. And what he does with his own life is “train” horses. He doesn’t whisper to them (although he was a consultant on Robert Redford’s film).

I went to see this movie because I was not paying $32 (for 2 people) to see Transformers, Dark of The Moon. I knew I was going to see it but there is a limit to how much I will allow myself to suffer. And the day after seeing Buck, boy, did I suffer. I was one of the only people over the age of 12 who was tolerant of the second Transformers movie. I apparently liked it better than the cast or the director--although I use the word “like” in the loosest possible way. I use the word in the “I only wanted to sort of poke out my eyes while watching this film” way.

The new Transformers made me want to poke out my eyes. Really. That is not hyperbole. I got up and went to the bathroom even though I didn’t have to go. Anytime any character talked for more than 20 seconds all I could think was “God I hope a robot comes in and freaking blows something up.”

But let’s get back to Buck. The point of this movie, in addition to loosely sketching the story of a man’s life, is that violence is not the answer. You do not need to beat hell out of a horse to get it on your side. And even more important that the victims of violence are not doomed to, themselves, be violent.

It is also a movie for people who like horses and old fashioned documentaries. There is a curious glossing over of some details. Buck talks, his friends talk, one of his daughters and his wife talk. But other, presumably important, people in his life do not. He talks but there is a reticence there. In some ways this is a little frustrating.  

But it is also sort of refreshing. After all in today’s world “celebrities” have reality shows where they talk about their bowel movements on national television isn’t it nice to have a retiring, private man who shares enough, just enough, to let us into his world and life and to teach us something?  And this isn’t just a subtle lesson about how violence is unnecessary but how patience is. He scoffs, at one point in the film about how people who are 40 and say they are “too old.” He then notes how one of his mentors was “breaking” horses when he was 94.

Buck is a small film but there are big lessons there if we choose to take them to heart. You can also just eschew that and watch a movie about a man with a different way of “breaking” (the term is not really apropos) horses.  It isn’t all happy and cheery. But ultimately the film is low key, hopeful and if it doesn’t give you a laundry list of important life changing issues to think on, it gives you a handful and some very clear and specific reasons why you should think on those issues it does touch upon.

Terrence Malick films make me nervous. It isn’t because there is anything wrong with the films themselves, for the most part; it is that Malick fans are true believers. They are like a cinematic version of Neil Diamond fans (ask anyone who has written a harsh word about Mr. Diamond about the response). He could film a guy reading the newspaper for three hours and they would call it pure genius. Now the half dozen or so films by Malick are pretty much all, at least, watchable. I think I would except The New World myself but I do not want to call down hordes of Malick-ites upon me so I will leave it at that.

I went to the films with my 13 year old son. Both of us felt we had played the super hero/blockbuster card too many times so far this spring and summer. We saw Thor, X –Men First Class and Super 8.  None of these are painful. The best of that bunch is clearly the nostalgic Super 8 but none are films that are going to stick to your ribs. We felt that any viewing of The Green Lantern was fraught with peril. And that, along with Tree of Life, were the only films we hadn’t seen.

Tree of Life is an entirely different matter from any blockbuster ever spawned. It is also another matter for Malick films. From the film’s first moments, especially sitting next to a 13 year old, my pretentious-o-meter was set to high. But there is nothing pretentious about this film. It is a rumination on life, death, theology, pain, suffering and, ultimately on humanity. It is a film about being human and it is a film where any attempt at plot summary, at trying to give potential viewers a narrative to pique there interest, is superfluous. There is a plot about a young man with two brothers, his sometimes difficult father and his idealized mother. But is what you are seeing his view? Or is it the metaphysical truth?  That is open to interpretation and Malick is likely the only one who knows for sure. I wonder if he will give me an interview?  There is no plot, no conflict other than those we all face—life, death, trying to be happy, trying to understand.

The most interesting thing to me about this film, unrelated to the film itself, was watching it with my son. I wondered what he thought about it. After the film some of the people around, 50-somethings mostly, began talking about the film and missing some very obvious parts of the plot most notably; which of the sons is the grown up Sean Penn. They didn’t know. Now, anyone who watches the film should see this easily, unless they were not paying attention. I asked my son and he replied correctly. Then I asked him what he thought the movie was about and he said; “It’s about why bad things happen to people who didn’t do anything wrong.”

And that is as good an answer as many will give. I asked him about the woman sitting next to us who said “It is all symbolic and can mean whatever you want.” He thought that was nonsense. Now, this isn’t just to tell you how smart my son is. It is to let you know that despite a non-narrative structure that includes long interludes of fiery formation of planets and the first walking creatures crawling toward land, where cells form and voiceovers ponder meaning as lights flash on screen and planets move past and volcanoes erupt, a 13 year old stayed engaged and paid attention to the entire film.

It meant something to him. This movie made a 13 year old who is really looking forward to Transformers 3 (me too) and still watches the odd cartoon here and there pay attention and think about relationships, life and, although he might not know the term, theology.  There were no car chases, no robots, no vampires, no super heroes and he watched it and thought about it. I will not swear to you all kids will but the fact any did is a comment on the universal brilliance of Tree of Life.

It meant something to me as well. I come back to a line from the mother that says “Love everyone, every leaf, every ray of light” which is promptly followed by some very dubious behavior. It means something and the juxtaposition does too. There is a generality to what happens here. No one is totally bad and while certainly, the mother is portrayed as totally good, she is the exception. We are all human, we all face the question, repeated throughout our lives; why? And Malick’s film goes a long way in, if not giving us an answer, at least helping us frame the question for ourselves.  It should bring tears to your eyes at some point.

It is also visually stunning. In addition to being a masterwork of writing, Tree of Life, is a masterpiece of direction, acting and cinematography. Films like this rarely find their way into wide distribution. Go see it in the theater. Don't try to watch it on your iPhone.

A few weeks ago I saw Thor and I intended to write something about it. But I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Now, I thought Thor was a pretty good movie, judging on the basis of the genre, but there just isn't much to say. It is written carefully enough to elicit minimal eye-rolls. None of the actors embarrass themselves (or distinguish themselves). Most important, for a super-hero/comic movie, it is well-paced. They don't get bogged down in mumbo jumbo or feel the need to make it two and a half hours long.

But that is about all I would have had to say about Thor. I have much more to say about Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Although I am not always sure what it is I want to say about this.

First of all the subject matter of the film is eerily moving. A cave with paintings dating back over 30,000 years is discovered in France and the area is immediately sealed off because of the magnificence and significance of the find. The paintings are so pristine some think they are modern fakes.

And there is something about this, this connection to our ancient past that almost brings tears to the eyes. Some hand from the past reaching out to us and us back to them, forming a connection. I do not know how to describe the emotion it creates.

And neither does Herzog or any of the people in the film precisely. They move back and forth between the science of the find to bits and pieces that are almost mystical. Herzog prods to get more mystical, more spiritual answers. One interviewee describes how he went into the cave for five days straight and became so overwhelmed emotionally he had to not go in the next day. He had to step back. It makes sense somehow. There is also discussion of how scientists and filmmakers both felt almost watched in the caves. You need not think of this as a supernatural (you also can feel free to do so).

There are disconnected bits about hunting using spear throwers. There are discussions of the artistic beauty of calcite covered cave bear skulls.  These images are so old and yet seem so new. There is no context, no real way to ever know the purpose--or perhaps more chilling, the utter lack of purpose--in their creation. Is this art for the sake of art? Is this a Stone Age art gallery? There are hints of a religious purpose but they are only hints.

Perhaps the eeriness, the meaning comes from these ancient images making you feel connected and yet small, a small part of some large progression.

The film, the narration and interviews, seems to struggle to make sense of what this find means and how to place its significance in our modern world. It is baffling but this does not ruin or in any way harm the movie.  It is as if we have caught Herzog and the various art historians, archeologists et al trying to make sense of this themselves. It would be interesting to follow up with these people over time. I suppose one could do this by awaiting their various papers and books on the subject.

Then there is the 3D. This is almost essential in this case. It doesn't matter for the interviews or the exterior shots. But it does for the caves.

The artists in these caves did not paint on flat surfaces but used the curved and rounded walls of the caves as part of their paintings (not unlike many modern painters who are using three dimensional paintings). You would not get the full effect of these paintings in a 2D movie. Luddites can go back to cawing about how all movies should be black and white and silent. They are just plain silly.

3D is like a hammer. It is a tool. You can use it to create a better movie, like Herzog does here, or you can make Resident Evil IV.

I am glad Herzog had the exclusive right to film here rather than a James Cameron (with all due respect to his Titanic documentary). He made a movie that is beautiful and thought-provoking in that it raises more questions than it provides answers.

Postscript-If anyone can give me a definitive idea as to what Herzog's postscript is about I will be grateful. We are all mutant albino crocodiles peering into the past? If you say so Werner. Who am I to argue?