The past and future of film criticism/"Super 8" and "The Tree of Life"

It seems a bit curious, even ironic, that I would write a blog entry that is in any way critical of film critics.  That is basically what this whole thing is, after all.  Like many who love watching movies, I'd have to say that "professional film critic" would be among my top five dream jobs.  Getting paid to watch movies and talk about them?  I could totally do that.  And like many who dream of such a position, I'd fancy myself as "the people's critic", one who truly hears the voices of the masses and related to them on a level that your average critic, believed to be a beret-wearing art snob who'd rather watch four-hour German avant-garde films over Hollywood blockbusters, never possibly could.  But does the stereotype, and the environment it flourished in, still hold true?  Is film criticism yet another facet of both pop culture and every day life that has been rendered obsolete and subsequently redefined by the Internet?

The fact that I have this blog at all leads one to realize that it has.  Film critics were once a select few, an elite group of revered, highly trained journalists considered among the best of the best at what they do.  Their names still resonate today with those who love movies: Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin, Rex Reed.  Now the Internet has put that power in the hands of anyone who chooses to use it.  It makes it possible for an average 32-year-old guy from the suburbs of Detroit, MI, and millions or perhaps billions like me, to share their opinions with the world.  Social networking has even taken it to the next level.  When in the past you had to wait a day or two after a movie's release for reviews to hit, as people would await the trusted word of those few who were the first to see movie, now people are tweeting their 140 character or less reviews before they have even left their theater seat, as the credits have only begun to roll on the first showing of the day.  Instantaneous word of mouth has been enough to float or sink a movie.  And while most tweets certainly do not pack the journalistic punch of the reviews of old (though I'm sure Kael's famous line from her "Star Wars" review, "A Cracker Jack box that's all prizes", would have gotten plenty of retweets), they have shifted the power of spreading the word into the hands of the most powerful people in the film industry: the general public.

That said, you can still open your newspaper (or the Entertainment page on your newspaper's website, as it were) on Friday morning to see how their resident critic (or whichever one they syndicate) felt about that week's newest releases.  And plenty of people still put a lot of stock in these reviews, if the popularity of websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic is any indication.  In the end people still trust their own instincts when deciding what movie they'd like to go see, but would never turn down a little professional guidance to direct them toward the best way to spend their movie going dollar.

This past weekend, I saw two very different movies with one very large common factor: both films are highly critically acclaimed.  One film, "Super 8", is this week's entry in the Hollywood summer blockbuster sweepstakes, a large-budgeted (though not star-packed) sci-fi drama tale that is seemingly calculated to the perfect summer movie.  It has been garnering As and 4 star reviews from critics all over the country. The other film I saw, "The Tree of Life", is a highly anticipated but smaller, more artistic film that features top talent like Brad Pitt and Sean Penn but is far from a conventional film, yet seems tailor made to satisfy the sensibilities of the "film critic as art snob" stereotype.

"Super 8" (2011)

A big deal has been made of preserving the mysteries in this particular film, so I'll attempt to speak in generalities/commonly know facts when describing the film.  It centers on a group of kids around the age of 12-13 in a small Ohio factory town in 1979 that spend their youth making monster movies with their Super 8 movie camera.  They accidentally manage to film a train crash containing top secret US Air Force cargo, and are cryptically told never to speak of it.  This, of course, is when strange things start happening in their town, and to their group of friends, as they struggle to uncover the truth about what was really on the train, and what it truly wants.

This is a film that proudly wears its influences on its sleeve.  A big deal has been made about how "Spielberg-ian" the movie is; it should be noted that the man who directly or indirectly gave us many of the films that inspired this one (notably "ET", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "The Goonies") also produced "Super 8".  And the influence is very welcome; the kids (mostly unknowns) are perfectly cast, give spot-on performances and are clearly the best part of the movie.  Coming of age and dealing with personal/family tragedies are recurring themes throughout Spielberg's directing or producing work.  But there is much of director/writer J.J. Abrams here as well.  The man who gave us "Lost" and "Alias" has woven plenty of mystery and conspiracy into "Super 8".  And while it's an interesting angle to take, it sets the movie up for some serious pacing issues.  Abrams is obviously used to the freedom a TV series provides in the way of a lack of time constraint, allowing multi-leveled mysteries to unfold organically and at a measured pace.  But while "Lost" could spend 6 years and 144 hours setting up and revealing its mysteries, a movie typically has only two.  Here is "Super 8"'s fatal flaw: it is too slow to reveal its secrets, and by the time it starts to truly explain itself, more than an hour into it's hour and 51 minute run time, you wonder how interested you still are in knowing what the movie has to say.  It's still a very good and entertaining movie, and with its worst flaws it is still a better and richer experience than the average Hollywood blockbuster.  But if Abrams had spent a little less time paying homage to the movies he loved, and more time advancing his own story at a satisfying pace, he might have come a lot closer to achieving the magic he was so obviously striving for.

"The Tree of Life" (2011)

"The Tree of Life" sits at the other end of the spectrum, quite far away from filmmaking conventions in general and sitting much closer to, for lack of a better term, art.  It is difficult to describe exactly what the film is, as there is only a loose narrative story woven into it.  At its center lies a tale about the choices we make in life and what path, morally good or bad, they lead us down, eventually shaping us into the people we are.  This is presented to us between some of the most strikingly beautiful imagery ever filmed, montages of images of nature and the passage of time that are equally breathtaking and a bit irritating.  (A more cynical person could make a pretty great drinking game based on the number of low angle shots of trees and buildings or whispered, dramatic voice-overs.)  The whole thing just feels a bit forced: designed in all the right ways to purposely coax awe and emotion out of the viewer.  The problem with this scam is that it works almost flawlessly.  The film is at its best in the moments when it does focus on its central narrative, particularly when the teenage character of Jack (played as an adult in some scenes by Sean Penn, though the young actor playing him as a teenager is superb.)  Jack is a young man growing up in an unnamed Texas suburb in the late 50s/early 60s.  And while the narrative parts of the story show us his whole childhood and hint at his obviously troubled adulthood, watching him as a teenager is this movie's most rewarding experience.  We see Jack interacting with his polar opposite parents: his almost stereotypically stern but caring father (Brad Pitt), who seems to follow the film's "path of nature", and his loving, passive, nearly angelic mother (Jessica Chastain), an obvious follower of the "path of grace".  (These two paths, and which we as people choose to follow, are the central point of the film.)  We see Jack trying to find for himself which path to follow, making moral choices, often not the best ones, along the way.  The audience can actually see how the consequences of his choices and the influence of each parent begin to mold him.  A slightly overlong, vague but beautiful ending sequence reveals to us, at possible risk of spoiling anything (though really, this isn't the kind of movie that can be "spoiled" anyway), that our lives are continually shaped and changed by the choices we make and the ideals we follow.

Watching "The Tree of Life", you kind of want to dislike it in a way.  The whole affair looks like it was carefully crafted to be the perfect stereotypical "art film".  A cynical person would love to see the film collapse under the weight of its own pretentiousness, and how obviously it wants to Be Important and Make a Statement about Life.  It naturally gets a bit heavy-handed at times, hinting at religious overtones but never outright giving into them.  It is quite a bit bloated with artsy tricks, but the moments that connect do resonate, whether you necessarily want them to or not.

So to sum it all up, did either of these two very different but equally acclaimed live up to the rapturous critical hype they both received?  Not exactly.  Were they worthwhile experiences with enough good in them to make them worth watching?  Absolutely.  Not every movie can be as great or as terrible as the world wants it to be, but that makes them no less worthy of being seen.

But what are you listening to me for?  Make the decision on your own.

Fight For Your Life; "Bridesmaids".

Today I was talking to a female friend of mine on the phone.  I told her I had just gotten back from seeing "Bridesmaids", for what turned out to be the second time.  She sounded surprised that I had seen it, since she thought it looked like a "chick flick" and even she had no interest in it.  But there's truly a lot going on in the movie, which the commercials that feature the bridesmaid's crazy antics don't bring entirely to light.

"Bridesmaids" (2011)

For starters, yes, the movie is very funny.  Hysterically funny.  One of the funniest I've seen in a long time.  Funny enough to, yes, transcend gender barriers and entertain the guys too, much like how many women I know love "The Hangover" or "The 40-Year-Old Virgin".  But I consider "The Hangover" to be kind of an unfair comparison.  If one must be made, I found it to be closer in tone and style to another comedy from a couple of years back that I enjoyed, "I Love You, Man".  Both that movie and "Bridesmaids" deal with more than just crazy antics (not to diminish any of the sticking points of "The Hangover", all of which it nailed in my opinion.)  They were both about friendships, relationships, and coming to terms with being in your 30s and figuring out What It's All About.

"Bridesmaids" takes a slightly backwards approach to the subject compared to "I Love You, Man".  Despite the plural title it is very much the story of Annie (Kristen Wiig, who also co-wrote the movie), whose best friend since childhood, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) has gotten engaged and made her the maid of honor.  It's already a pretty difficult time in her life (a failed business, roommates and a job she hates, being a booty call for a handsome, rich jerk who wants nothing to do with her outside the bedroom.)  But when Annie meets the other bridesmaids, particularly wealthy, beautiful, perfect Helen (Rose Byrne, playing the part so sweet that it's impossible to hate her no matter how much you know you should), she begins to question her role in Lillian's future life, as well as the direction of her own.  As one disatrous (but hilarious) turn of events after another unfolds, Annie's self-confidence and sanity hang in the balance.

Despite most of the main characters being female there are universal themes that resonate throughout "Bridesmaids".  One major one is taking stock of your life.  As someone who is over 30 and attempting to start my life over, and aware of how few real friends I have left and how difficult it is to make new ones, this hit home with me in a big way.  This theme was what stuck with me, beyond the big and occasionally awkward laughs.  There's one particularly telling scene in which one of the other bridemaids, Megan (Melissa McCarthy, this movie's secret weapon) literally wrestles with an extremely down in the dumps Annie, commanding her to "fight for your shitty life".  Megan just wanted Annie to believe that life is something not to be given up on, but to be appreciated and fought for, to work up the nerve to face life's challenges head on, and most of all to remember that the people she has in her life do care and will always support and fight for her.  I think that's something many people forget when they reach low points in their life, I know I certainly do.

It maybe noble at best, or completely off the rails at worst, to hope that this theme will resonate with most people who see it as much as it did me; I suppose I (and perhaps the filmmakers) can only hope that it does.  But I think this movie is really going to surprise people who were expecting a "chick flick" or a "female 'Hangover'", and possibly even inspire a few people to work out of the bad hand life may have dealt them and to fight for their shitty lives too.  I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that "Bridesmaids" is the movie to beat for funniest of the year, but I'll go one further and, dare I say, call it potentially one of the best.

"Red State"/The Passion of the Clerk.

Apologies for my complete and total neglect of this blog.  I'll start with a little follow-up: The grand experiment has all but been abandoned only three movies in.  It was a noble one, and perhaps far more ambitious than I anticipated.  I'll still try to watch some of the films I rarely watch from my collection, and I will still keep this blog going, however infrequently, should any movie blog-suitable events occur in my life.  Which segues quite nicely into this entry.

I got a call from my sister one day in mid-February saying excitedly that she'd gotten us tickets to attend an early screening of Kevin Smith's new movie "Red State"in Ann Arbor, MI, which would be followed by a Q&A with Smith.  Needless to say, I was pretty excited about this.  I have been a fan of Kevin Smith ever since I first saw "Clerks" on video in July 1995.  At the time I worked at a movie theater (the AMC Southland 4 in Taylor, MI, which has since been closed, reopened, closed again, and then gutted and converted to a Borders) and therefore related well to the customer service humor.  (It's also worth noting I have a twisted sense of humor.)  Within a couple of months time my badly dubbed VHS copy of the movie had been passed around and forced upon so many of my friends and co-workers that it literally became unwatchable.  I anxiously anticipated the release of "Mallrats" (though I was not technically old enough to see it), and eventually saw it three times in theatres (the first, on opening day, I was the only person in the theater.)  I quickly became a fan of the unique voice present throughout Smith's films, even those that were not part of the semi-loose narrative known as "The Askew-niverse".  His films are relatable and down to earth, as raunchy as is required to be true to its characters, and even at their most ridiculous had a very grounded sense of reality and even somewhat of a moral lesson to be learned.  In other words, smart hard-hitting stuff disguised as slacker humor and "dick and fart jokes."  I've seen every film he's made since, and while I didn't necessarily love them all I appreciated the statement each of them made, and the voice that connected them all.  Which brings me to his latest film.

"Red State" (2011)

The basic premise behind "Red State", or at least what it first appears to be, is three teenage boys answering an Internet ad promising them sex.  They end up being kidnapped by members of the Five Points Church, an ultra conservative group with some pretty unique ideas about cleansing the world of sin.  The inspiration behind them is the infamous Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, but the congregation of Five Points don't settle for just holding signs at funerals, they take matters into their own hands.  The film takes somewhat of a surprising turn when an investigation of a car accident spirals into an ATF raid on the church's compound, leading to a climactic battle between "good" and "evil".

"Red State" is very different in tone and content from Smith's previous work, and yet it strangely never feels out of place with it.  Moral and religious discussion has always been present in his films, but with the possible exception of "Dogma" it has never been more prevalent or hard-hitting than it is here.  "Red State" has been described as being a "horror" film, though viewers of the film realize that the terror comes not from suspense but from discomfort, in that you truly believe that somewhere in the country even a group as out there as Five Points truly can, and perhaps does, exist.  (And not even necessarily the Phelps family of the Westboro church, who exist in this film's universe.)  That is a pretty chilling thought indeed.  But there is so much more going on in "Red State", much of it dealing with making the right moral decisions at the bleakest of times.  There is plenty of Smith's trademark humor here, to lighten the mood just enough to feel for its characters and somewhat understand the complexities of being on both sides of a major moral argument.  The Cooper family and the congregation of Five Points are clearly the "villains" of this film, though they are presented not necessarily as monsters but as people who stand firm and passionate behind their beliefs and would be willing to kill or even die for them.  Likewise, our "heroes", the ATF agents who conduct the raid on the compound, realize they are staring down evil but still question the morality behind what they do.  This is what "Red State" is truly about: what truly defines the concepts of "good" and "evil", and when is it okay to make exceptions to the rules?

The message of "Red State" is lifted even higher by the two primary performances in this film.  Michael Parks plays Abin Cooper, the family patriarch and leader of the Five Points church. And he plays the part brilliantly, with a fiery passion for his work and a cold but almost charming demeanor that recalls some of the great screen villains of recent memory, from Hans Landa in "Inglorious Basterds" to Lots-o-Huggin Bear in "Toy Story 3".  At the other extreme is ATF agent Joseph Kennan, played exceptionally by John Goodman.  He provides the film with both its humorous and ultimately its moral center.  Both actors own every scene they appear in, and raise up the great performances around them (there are simply too many to single any more out) that much more.

In order to keep things spoiler free, I won't go into too much detail about the ending, except to say that while the climax is slightly less, well, climactic than it could have been, the ends do tie up nicely and the last few lines of dialogue close the movie (and its message) out perfectly.  While different in tone than his previous work, "Red State" is undeniably a Kevin Smith movie in every way.  It feels like a definitive statement, perhaps even a swan song of sorts (indeed, he has announced that it will be his second-to-last film), full to the brim with all sorts of moral questions that will have audiences talking about this film for years to come, and perhaps re-examining their own morals and beliefs.  "Red State" is truly, without exaggeration, Kevin Smith's finest hour-and-a-half.

The film was followed by a Q&A session with Smith, for which he is nearly as famous for as he is for being a filmmaker.  He certainly didn't disappoint on this particular night, spending as much as half an hour answering a single question.  He spoke at great length not only about his past but his future after being a filmmaker, which he plans to devote to recording various podcasts (which he already does at his website, www.smodcast.com) and starting his own Internet radio station this May.  His devoted audience, myself included, hung on every word, relishing the opportunity to hear the self-described storyteller cover all elements of his life and career, fitting so many long and interesting stories into two fast-moving hours.  Few filmmakers have as close and direct of a connection with their fans as Smith does, and his fans obviously appreciate his frank and open discussions.

The evening as a whole was a satisfying and thrilling experience for fans of Kevin Smith, and of the art of film making in general.  At a time when many filmmakers and studios spend exorbitant amounts of money making and marketing what amounts to be pretty but hollow commercials or rehashes of proven commodities, it's refreshing to see a filmmaker who bucks the system and brings his work directly to the fans, and feels a passion so deep for what he does that anyone who gets close enough, fan or otherwise, can see and admire it.  If Kevin Smith should ever read this, I'd thank him for sharing his passion and his voice with us at a time when the average moviegoer so seldom gets to see or hear such things from filmmakers.  And I, like the rest of his fans, look forward to seeing what the future holds for him and all of us.  Bravo.

2010 Movie Marathon: "300" and The List.

As scheduled, last night the great 2010 movie marathon began with the film alphabetically first in my collection, "300".

"300" (2007)

Zack Snyder gets criticized a lot for his visual style. His movies have a distinctive, slick, almost polished look to them even if the material is gritty (and it usually is.) I actually am a fan. So far he's three for three with me (I have not seen "Legend of the Guardians") and I can't wait for "Sucker Punch." In the meantime, there's "300", which I don't think I like as much as "Watchmen" but still find pretty engaging both visually and as a story. It's bloody, unique, well done, and pretty fun to watch.

Tonight I'm going to cheat and skip over "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" (because I just watched it last week) and move on to "8 Mile". After that will be two of my all-time favorite movies, "Almost Famous" and "American Beauty."

At any rate, here is the complete list (for now) for the 2010 Movie Marathon.



300 (1/1)
The 40-Year-Old Virgin (skipped, may add on at the end)
8 Mile (1/2)
Almost Famous (Untitled Director's Cut)
American Beauty
American Pie 2
Army of Darkness
BASEketball
Batman Begins
Beerfest
Being John Malkovich
The Big Lebowski
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Blow
The Blues Brothers
Borat
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (premiere viewing)
Catch Me If You Can
Chasing Amy
Clerks
Clerks II
The Dark Knight
Dazed & Confused
Death to Smoochy
The Deer Hunter
The Departed
Dodgeball
Dogma
Dogtown and Z-Boys
Empire Records
Enemy of the State
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Fight Club
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Get Him to the Greek
Go
Grosse Pointe Blank
The Hangover
Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle
Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
High Fidelity
Hot Tub Time Machine
Inception
(Indiana Jones and the) Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Jackass: The Movie
Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back
Kick-Ass
Kingpin
Little Miss Sunshine
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Mallrats
Manos: The Hands of Fate (Mystery Science Theater 3000 version)
The Matrix
Moulin Rouge
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Not Another Teen Movie
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Office Space
Old School
Panic Room
Pi
Pulp Fiction
Requiem for a Dream
Reservoir Dogs
Road Trip
The Rules of Attraction
Run Lola Run
School of Rock
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Series 7: The Contenders
Seven
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
Spaceballs
Speed
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Super Troopers
Superbad
Swingers
Team America: World Police
There's Something About Mary
This is Spinal Tap
Trainspotting
The Transporter
Tropic Thunder
UHF
Vanilla Sky
Wedding Crashers
Wet Hot American Summer
What Lies Beneath
Zombieland
Zoolander

New acquisitions and borrowed items returned will be slotted in order or added to the end.

Happy 2011!

Re-experiencing "Inception".

Some movies, and there is nothing particularly wrong with this approach, only really need to be seen once.  They are what many believe movies to be: quite simply, two hours (give or take) of entertainment for the sake of entertainment, designed to be viewed, perhaps even enjoyed, and then forgotten about.  Other movies can be revisited like comforting old friends, making us laugh yet again at the same lines we recite with our friends and enjoy as a fun experience, or even a way to bond with and relate to others.  Others still reach us in a different way on those repeated viewings.  They are the movies that, while first watching them, affected us in such a way that we are compelled to revisit them to get back in touch with those feelings we had when we first saw them, whatever they were.  Though it is occasionally unsuccessful, we at least remember the feelings we had if we are unable to recreate them.

Finally, there are those rare few movies that we return to for fresh new perspective, to reassemble familiar puzzle pieces into an image we can now better understand, and see and appreciate the detail of.  One of these movies is "Inception."

"Inception" (2010)

Without reveal of specific plot points "Inception" is equal parts action-packed heist film, sci-fi wonder world, existential examination of reality, and very human love story carefully crafted and folded into each other like the film's famous dream world buildings in the previews we've all seen.  This special effects driven "wow factor" is what probably got so many people interested in seeing this film in the first place.  Once could almost think of this to the film's concept of dream structure, an entry level into this world.  And it is on subsequent viewings, eased into the intricate story by the eye-popping special effects, that we as viewers advance further into the details and truly see and feel the characters' motivations.  As soon as we hit "Play" we already know how Cobb's story is going to end.  But this is the information we use to really understand him when we watch it again, to feel his painful losses along with him and follow his story to its conclusion.  And this is by not just observing, but absorbing details we may have missed while we were waiting to see people fly around in hallways.  Perhaps we even decide to devote some time and attention to the other story at the heart of "Inception", the reason these characters are here in the first place: the relationship between Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), his recently deceased father, and father figure Peter Browning (Tom Berenger).  There are so many stories, so many layers to the film that a single viewing could never possibly be enough to process each one.  Each viewing brings a new level of understanding, and draws the viewer that much deeper into the characters' world, a dream world the viewers themselves may not be ready to leave once reality sets in for them as it does for us all.

Re-watching "Inception" is not merely revisiting the familiar and comfortable.  It is opening a new layer of the film to be examined and experienced.  And, perhaps, to provide additional perspective for the next, allowing us to see (and possibly feel) even more than we had before.

That Personal Touch/IMAX Evangelism.

From the second I finished my last entry, I knew almost exactly what I was going to say in this one, even if the event that was to inspire it hadn't happened yet.  The plan all along was for this to basically be a comparison piece about the two different types of IMAX theaters: the digital projection kind you see at AMC theatres, and the 70MM film projection kind (known in technical terms as 15/70) you see at places like the Henry Ford IMAX theater in Dearborn, MI and other museums.science centers.  I was even seeing the same movie at both--"TRON: Legacy"--so I could make an honest, apples-to-apples comparison.  And I knew in my heart of hearts that on every conceivable level, it was going to be an uncontested victory for 15/70.

What I didn't know is the extra level of enhancement that last night's experience was going to get.

I admit, I'm a bit of an IMAX evangelist.  I have fond memories of seeing the old nature documentary movies in IMAX theaters as a young child, swaying in my seat as we fly through the mountains or into the Grand Canyon or raft down the Amazon river.  And as IMAX theaters began showing theatrical movies for the first time in 2002, I made it a point to see as many of them there as possible.  I went back there to see several films I had already seen in regular theaters (which I even did this past summer for "Toy Story 3"), and in the case of "Inception", I saw the film in IMAX twice, with two different other people, and did not see it in a regular theater at all.  So you could say, as a tried and true movie geek, I am a fan. 

I "liked" the Henry Ford IMAX theater on Facebook, and often commented on their posts.  What's great is that they reply back, as excited to hear from enthusiastic fans as those fans are to share their experiences and talk about experiences to come.  So imagine my surprise yesterday, when my phone chirped that I had received a private message on Facebook.  It was from none other than Ron, the head projectionist at the Henry Ford IMAX theater.  He had seen than I said I was attending the 10:25 showing of "TRON" there last night and invited me to come up for a tour of the projection booth.  To provide a bit of perspective, for my sister Angie, my companion last night and a self confessed Red Wings fanatic, this would be a bit like getting an invitation to tour the locker room at Joe Louis Arena.  Naturally, I was more than happy to accept.

After the movie was over (about 12:45 am mind you), we headed up the stairs to the projection booth.  There is a clear glass window in the hallway where the projection booth is accessed where anyone who chooses to go up can look in on the projector and the equipment, and the facility will even do tours for school groups and things like that.  But a personal invite?  Awesome.  So after the film stopped running Ron invited us inside the booth.  He proceeded to show us all of the equipment and explain how all of it works, from the gigantic, $1 million projector and huge spools of film ("TRON: Legacy"'s are a bit over two feet wide--and there's two of them) to the electric equipment that keeps the whole thing running.  He even gave us some swag (pictured below).  But through it all he was very friendly and informative, eager to answer questions and share information and talk a little shop with two obvious fans eager to listen.  It was a fun, unique experience and one I'll take with me for a long time and remember when I recommend the theater to others.

A size comparison of AMC's "IMAX" screen vs. the Henry Ford's (and for perspective, 6' tall Ron the projectionist.)

A comparison of screen and film sizes between IMAX and theatrical films.

Some cool pins and buttons I got.

As for the movie itself, there was absolutely no comparison, and I even enjoyed it more on the second viewing as I picked up on subtle plot touches throughout the film.  But the film really shined in the moments when the action filled the entirety of the 80X60 screen and you were sucked into the flawless 3D of the futuristic grid and all of the action contained within.  The sound and picture at the Henry Ford were surprisingly clearer and more immersive.  And Daft Punk's brilliant score (I downloaded it on iTunes almost two weeks ago and still listen to it constantly) just BUMPS so loud you feel like you're actually in the End of Line Club from the movie.  It is a movie going experience--truly the best word to describe it--unmatched by any in recent memory.  And it would have been this on the strength of IMAX alone.  IMAX is not just a gimmick to keep you from just staying home and watching movies from your Netflix queue on your 50" widescreen HDTV and six-channel surround sound system.  Nor is it shameless money grubbing on the part of movie studios and theater owners (in fact, the Henry Ford IMAX is a non-profit venture.)  It is an experience (think of it more like a theme park or museum attraction) and truly the best way to watch a movie.  Watching a multiplex IMAX theater (referred to by some as Digital IMAX, "Mini-MAX" and even "LIE-MAX") is basically little more than watching a movie on a slightly larger screen with a better sound system.  It's in true, 15/70 film format (meaning, 15 holes on each side of the film per frame, which is 70 mm wide) that the word "experience" comes in.

But my "experience" last night was enhanced by something I never would have gotten in a multiplex: the kind of personal touch that inspires a person to ramble on his blog about it.  And while I'm sure Ron gives plenty of these tours every year, to school kids and interested movie geeks like myself, the fact that he took the time to personally invite us up and show us all of the equipment, to happily welcome us into his world as fans of his work, so to speak, truly brings this "IMAX Experience" to the next level.  Thanks, Ron.  We'll see you again soon.

Epics and the Test of Time; "TRON: Legacy"

We have all at one point or another in our movie-going lives seen a film that could be defined in some way as "epic".  Epics are bigger than life, two hour (give or take) justifications of the creation of such an immersive storytelling medium.  Films that are epics are made to be epics; there is simply no other scale they can exist on.  The sounds, the visuals, the conflicts draw you into every nuance of the story until, pardon the cliche, it feels like you're "in" it.  On subsequent viewings, you can't help but be completely immersed in the details, and your focus suddenly shifts to the story serving the scope and the effects.

"Star Wars" is a key example of this.  It is a film that my generation was shown at a young, impressionable age that we fell in love with, and as we grew up and became parents ourselves we found ourselves in the position to pass it down to our children.  I personally can't wait until my son is old enough to concentrate on the cool spaceships and funny robots, which hopefully as he matures will lead to a love of the film, and film in general.  Who knows, maybe he'll just say "This is stupid!" and go outside and play baseball or something.  But I like to think that I can somehow influence that in him.

You may be wondering at this point what any of this has to do with "TRON: Legacy", which is the reason I'm babbling on about all this nonsense to begin with. 

"TRON: Legacy" (2010)

A little background first: "TRON: Legacy" is a sequel to a movie released 28 years ago.  Some considered the original "TRON" to be everything from the birth of modern special effects, to the ultimate cautionary tale of corporate control over art, to a defining moment of the computer age.  Others don't consider it at all, as it was never much of a financial success, seldom gets shown on TV (it is also officially out of print on video), and is looked at as dated and even a bit laughable.  Over the years it took on a bit of reverence among computer and film geeks, who hungered for years to see the further adventures of Kevin Flynn but had little reason to believe they ever would.

That day has finally come, and the wait has been well worth it.

"Legacy" is about Kevin's 27-year-old son Sam, still dealing with the disappearance of his father after two decades.  When his father's former business partner receives a page he believes to be from Kevin, Sam decides to investigate and gets sucked into the grid himself.  I don't want to give away much after this, particularly what happens on the grid (I tried very hard to keep myself blind to as much of the actual story as possible, and was amazed how well I was able to do so.)  But I will say that the film succeeded in drawing you in with visuals until you were invested in the story (not particularly original, but still very engaging.)  Just like an epic is supposed to do.

When you watch some films, particularly for the first time, you know you're watching something special, something that is going to resonate long after the audience leaves the theater.  It will be analyzed by fans and picked apart by critics.  It will be discussed, questioned, speculated and even dreamt about.  Most importantly, it will be watched again and again, beloved in the future and passed down for new generations to appreciate and enjoy.  "TRON: Legacy" has the potential to be this.  It is far more technically innovative than its predecessor--in fact, more so than nearly any other film before it--and certainly more resonant.  Perhaps it's a bit presumptuous, or even bordering on hyperbolic, to state that this film could belong in the company of films like "The Matrix" or even God forbid "Star Wars" (both of which I was reminded of at times during "Legacy"--in a good way); time will have to tell how that turns out.  But if any film released this year can do just that, it's "TRON: Legacy".  Don't miss the opportunity to experience it for yourself (preferably in IMAX 3D, it's worth it.)