The Adam Project

Last night, I finished watching “The Adam Project,” which came out 16 days ago on Netflix, and I will let you know what I thought of it.

Sameen Amer said in her review, “For their second cinematic endeavour in less than a year (following 2021’s Free Guy), Shawn Levy and Ryan Reynolds take us on a good old fashioned sci-fi adventure in The Adam Project, a movie that’s highly derivative, riddled with inconsistences, burdened with some bafflingly wonky, uncanny valley de-aging … and yet fairly fun!”

The film goes back to the style of famous 1980s classics – like E.T., Big, Field of Dreams, and even Back to the Future – to give a simple but emotional adventure full of one-liners and jokes and a lot of endearments.

The story is about Adam Reed, played by Ryan Reynolds, a fighter pilot who steals a time jet in a dystopian 2050 with the goal of traveling back to 2018 and knowing the truth about his wife Laura’s (Zoe Saldaña) disappearance. However, he instead goes back to 2022 and meets his 12-year-old self (Walker Scobell) who is mourning the recent passing of his father (Mark Ruffalo), being a handful to his loving mother (Jennifer Garner) and getting bullied at school.

With villains – let by Catherine Keener’s dictator Maya Sorian – hunting them, the two Adams must join forces to not only solve the mystery of what happened to Laura but also save the world from its dystopic end.

Amer noted, “There isn’t much that is inventive about the story, but the script is both snappy and touching enough to keep things amicable, even if the overall predictability of the tale never lets the proceedings get quite as exciting as they should be. And as with most light-hearted sci-fi films and their tendency to have plot holes so big you could drive a DeLorean through them, The Adam Project too is best enjoyed without analysing the intricacies of its simplistic plot and inconsistent rules and mechanics.”

The cast really helps – from famous people like Ruffalo and Garner to terrific newcomer Scobell who is perfect as Reynolds’ younger version – everyone is enjoyable in their respective roles. Even Reynolds and his (evidently tired) wise-guy character are surprisingly active here.

Amer noted, “Keener though is sadly saddled not only with an underdeveloped character but the tragic recipient of some distractingly poor CGI de-aging; casting two different performers (one as younger and the other as older Sorian) or hiring a younger actress and aging her up instead would have definitely been a wiser move.”

In the end, “The Adam Project” may not be the most impressive film in science fiction you’ll see, but the comedy adventure still gives some entertainment while paying tribute with its throwback to classics. Amer ended her review by saying, “It may be too generic to be memorable, but it’s still not the worst viewing option for a lazy Sunday afternoon.”

After “Deadpool,” Reynolds has been the go-to man for this type of character. I like that they have him playing the quippy guy who doesn’t know when to stop because he knows that people are in love with that part of him. However, I hope he doesn’t get typecasted for that type of role all the time because people will get tired of it. Still, see this movie on Netflix because it is good. I would like to think of this as an alternate universe who follow-up to “13 Going on 30.”

Thank you for joining in on my review today. Look out next month to see what I will review next.

Elysium

2154. The wealthy have left a tired Earth to live on Elysium, a satellite land. Max, played by Matt Damon, a former criminal, gets a dangerous radiation injection in an industrial accident and has five days to live…unless he can get to Elysium and use advanced medical machines to cure himself.

For his follow-up to “District 9,” writer-director Neill Blomkamp has again done a satirical science-fiction. Kim Newman said in her review, “Here, he delivers the classic Aldous Huxley-George Orwell-Ray Bradbury rebel-against-a-monolithic-dystopia scenario, in the muscular, mechanoid-fetish ’80s/’90s James Cameron-Paul Verhoeven action-movie manner.”

Newman continued, “It’s beside the point that the society shown here isn’t a credible extrapolation of its imagined tech (if the medical machine existed, it would be more likely to create a world like that of In Time, where renewed health is used to keep the labouring poor at work supporting the rich folk). This future is a bitter cartoon of the way things are right now: most of the world lives in squalour — either unemployed or doing dirty, dangerous, ill-paid jobs — while the 2001-look silver wheel Elysium hangs tantalisingly visible in the sky.”

It takes courage for a modern, Hollywood-made film to be boldly in favor of illegal immigration and socialized medicine – definitely, the plot is about the sick third-world people desperate to go to a rich giant (i.e., America) in order to use medical facilities. Newman cautioned, “Watch the Obama hatred ignite on the IMDb comments threads for Elysium to get a sense of Blomkamp’s ambitions in an era when most science-fiction blockbusters can too easily be mistaken for toy commercials or military recruitment films. There’s little to the easy, privileged, lounging-on-the-lawn elite life of Elysium, though Blomkamp gives thought to grubby-handed doers like an icy Jodie Foster and a weaselly William Fichtner, who have to keep the money flowing in and the unwashed firmly out. However, the satirical barbs (which include RoboCop-style polite but murderous law droids) are packed between bursts of bleeding-edge movie action and dollops of soap opera about sick kids and saintly nurses. Alice Braga, the go-to angel of worldwide collapses, repeats the act she did in Blindness and I Am Legend, representing the humane values the compromised hero has to preserve. Sharlto Copley (who seems about two feet taller here than in his other films) is more entertaining as the Worst Of Both Worlds, an Elysium agent who lives on Earth because the world-spanning, rubble-strewn refugee camp gives him more opportunities to kill and ravage.”

Newman continued, “Using hand-held, grubby, jittery camera style and extremely polished CGI, Blomkamp stages extraordinary, visceral moments: a robot blown apart and disassembled in slo-mo by a percussion grenade, a character having his face grown back after it’s been blasted off. As in District 9, Blomkamp and company really think through the design of this world — the Amstrad-level computer-screen displays, the contrast between sleek Elysium shuttles and grungy people-smuggling ships.” It’s persistent and rigid in politics, but doesn’t go too far in characterization – Matt Damon is good as a head-shaved cyborg having an exoskeleton with a flash-drive in his head containing access codes in his brain, but Max is still a simplistic character. There should be a moment of disappointment when he gets to the place, he’s wanted to go his entire life and finds it’s just a satellite version of Beverly Hills, but at that time we’re too busy in crash-landing shoot-out mood for it to sink in.

Not perfect, but way more satisfying of an Earth dying film than “Oblivion” or “After Earth.” It is a little more predictable than “District 9,” but confirms Blomkamp as one of the best potential science-fiction of the decade. The film came out in 2013.

After seeing “District 9,” I guess you could say that this was trying to be just like that. However, I do have the say that despite it feeling like a copy, I still found myself enjoying it. I don’t think I have ever seen a Matt Damon movie that I didn’t like, maybe because I have enjoyed every movie he has been in. Despite it may not being a good movie, Damon has never disappointed in his roles. This film is no exception because I really enjoyed this one a lot. Especially the look of Elysium, even though it may not be anything new and extraordinary. Check this one and see for yourself.

Well, now we have reached the end of “Matt Damon Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

We Bought a Zoo

Lou Lumenick started his review by saying, “Genuinely charming, treacle-free family films are tough to find these days, so I’m happy to heartily recommend “We Bought a Zoo’’ as heartwarming holiday fare that even jaded adults can share with the kids.”

Cameron Crowe made a return to his original ways after “Elizabethtown” with “We Bought a Zoo,” released in 2011, starring Matt Damon as Benjamin, a newly widowed reporter who has survived so many layoffs at the LA Times.

Benjamin’s boss and his account brother, played by Thomas Hayden Church, are stumped when he decides to quit his job and reopen the long-closed Rossmoor Animal Park that he bought with a tradition.

Benjamin’s seven-year-old daughter, Rose, played by Maggie Elizabeth Jones, is excited because the deal includes 200 endangered animals at the location, along with so many strange staff.

Teenage son Dylan, played by Colin Ford, who has already been expelled from school for stealing, is less excited at having to leave his city friends behind for the countryside. He continues behaving in ways small and large, including outrageous drawings that shock his new teachers.

Benjamin wants to reopen the zoo by July 4, but that can’t happen unless it passes an inspection by a picky federal official, played by John Michael Higgins, who does the comedy along with Church.

The leader of the zoo’s staff is tough, no-nonsense zookeeper Kelly, played by Scarlett Johansson, who Lumenick admitted, “not normally a favorite of mine, in by far her best performance to date” (wait until you see her in the MCU).

Kelly is skeptical about Benjamin, until he goes deeper into his tradition to make improvements and begins bonding with some of the animals.

The zoo staff includes Kelly’s teen cousin Lily (Elle Fanning), who tries hard to win Dylan over, a heavy-drinking, bad-tempered mechanical genius (Angus Macfayden), and a friendly guy with a very present capuchin monkey on his shoulder (Patrick Fugit, the teenage star of Crowe’s “Almost Famous”).

This film doesn’t reach as high as “Almost Famous,” but it won’t disappoint his fans, either.

He’s collaborated with Aline Brosh McKeena on an intelligent script adapted from an autobiographical book by Benjamin Mee (that was set in England).

There are plenty of animals – a 650-pound grizzly and a sick old tiger are obvious in the story – to impress the kids. For their parents, there’s a selection of songs by Tom Petty, Neil Young, and Bob Dylan.

Lumenick noted, “Damon, who also did a great job playing a widower in the wildly different “Contagion’’ this year, is a commanding presence as he struggles to help his son deal with grief over his mother’s death. Damon brings a really sensitive feel to scenes when Benjamin remembers his late wife, played by Stephanie Szostak, with love and affection, even as his relationship with Kelly begins to deepen.

Lumenick credited, “One of our great humanist directors, Crowe deals with difficult emotional issues, but always with a light, sure and honest hand.” He makes the two hours of “We Bought a Zoo” – normally a little long for a family movie – positively go by fast.

I know that this is a change of genre for Matt Damon, who we know as one of the best action stars of all time, but I think he does a good job in this family film. If you want to see Matt Damon in a different type of film outside his element, then see this because it’s a good. Don’t listen to anyone who hated on this film, see it for yourself and make your own judgment.

Look out next week to see what I will finish “Matt Damon Month” with.

Turning Red

Tonight, I saw the new Pixar movie, “Turning Red,” which came out on Disney+ yesterday. How is this new film by Pixar? Is it up there with one of the best or not?

Based on director Domee Shi’s background in Canada during her childhood, “Turning Red” captures the time right before teens were dependent on the internet. You really go back to that time in middle school with flip phones, trying to pass notes in class, and boy bands. However, what’s amazing, besides from finally having more coming-of-age films that does not occur in the 80s, is how relatable the sudden change from childhood to teenager.

Everyone had to go through that time their parent found out they aren’t a child anymore, and it’s always a nightmare. Sabina Graves said in her review, “There’s a moment in Turning Red’s first act where you get Ratatouille’d back to that nightmare core memory.” You’ll be awed at the screen thinking the film’s protagonist Mei (Rosalie Chiang) is just having a nightmare when her mother (Sandra Oh) finds out what she hides under her bed. Graves said, “It’s the most stressful case of sympathetic secondhand embarrassment that’s too real.” That’s before Med turns into a giant red panda.

Graves said, “Shi, along with co-writer Julia Cho, give us an endearingly comical exploration of a teen girl’s journey navigating every messy bit of entering adolescence. At a cultural level through Mei’s Asian-Canadian family, the movie speaks to the societal molds that women have been expected to fall in step with that don’t entirely change even when East meets West. Whether through cotillions, bat mitzvahs, or quinceañeras, womanhood usually comes with an expectation of making sure the proverbial Pandora’s Box comes delivered wrapped with a bow keeping the true nature of it tucked away.” For Mei, that true nature just happens to be a family trait where sometimes female members can transform into a giant red panda when their emotions take over them.

Mei genuinely represents the generation that began to break away when she immediately accepts her panda. Her mother has other plans, trying to prepare Mei for a traditional ceremony to rid of it. Graves notes, “Her mother’s fierce overprotectiveness isn’t played to enable domineering parent tropes, but deconstructs them. The teen angst jumps out and Mei rebelliously pushes back in secret.” Instead, she depends on her friends Miriam (Ava Morse), Priya (Maitreyi Ramakrishnan), and Abby (Hyein Park) to accept her changes she finds herself going through – even when Mei beings to see living her truth dangerously to see her favorite boy band might unleash a household anger like she’s never seen. Graves said, “On her hilarious journey to utilize her panda powers to get herself and her friends to a 4*Town concert (a perfect pastiche of the boyband hearthrobs of the era), Mei lets herself stumble through awkwardness with boys and clashing emotions between who she is with her friends versus the perfect daughter she is at home. In spite of the fantastical bent, it touches on feelings that are all too real.”

Life among the teens in “Turning Red” is shown with complete relatability, even when it deals with the sickening part of growth, like what girls go through during that time. Graves asked, “Is a girl’s metaphorical sexual awakening really shocking compared to, say, movie scenes where parents find their son’s crusty socks, or the countless films that center boys’ coming of age through their virginity bets? Women have long had to extend themselves to empathize with depictions of youth in global cinema that centered the male gaze.” A teen turning into a giant red panda while she is figuring out who she is shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to understand in comparison. Graves noted, “Spiritually, Turning Red has more in common with A Goofy Movie, dealing with parent-child relationships while they grow up, get their first crushes and just have to make it to the concert, OK?” (The 4*Town song created for the film by Billie Eilish and Finneas, the latter of whom voices one of the band members, is an earworm.)

Graves noted, “Turning Red is a stellar accomplishment from Pixar that enriches and diversifies the kind of coming-of-age stories so often depicted in movies and other mediums. Despite constraints put upon its creatives when it came to tackling certain subjects, Shi still manages to deliver a deeply personal picture.” The music, the clothing choices, the split between school and home life…everything is there, like opening your diary with memories from a box somewhere in the attic. Through Mei, her friends, and her family, we get to see how supporting love can be so permitting, especially when breaking generational traditions together – and how we really need both our real and made-up families to honor ourselves in ways our ancestors weren’t able to.

If you have a Disney+, check this out, it’s a good one. I think out of all the Pixar movies they have made, this one is probably one of the most, if not the most, relatable film they ever made. Seeing how it is based on a part of childhood we all had to go through and don’t have fond memories of, I think everyone will like it. Especially since it hints at the parts of adolescence but bases it on transforming into a red panda. Check it out and see the growth that is made during the runtime of the film.

Thank you for joining in on tonight’s review. Stay tuned next Friday for the continuation of “Matt Damon Month.”

The Adjustment Bureau

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “Here I go again. I'll be helpless to stop myself. "The Adjustment Bureau" is about the conflict between free will and predestination, and right there, you have the whole dilemma of life, don't you? Either it makes a difference what you choose to do, or the book had already been written, and all you can do is turn the pages.”

Since these questions are asked in a science-fiction thriller with a romance at the center, it should not be surprising. Sci-fi gives everyone the freedom of playing with realism, and few writers did that with more complexity than Philip K. Dick. This movie written and directed by George Nolfi is based on a Dick story about a legion of “adjusters” who move a strange thing there and a known thing here, just to be sure everything goes according to plan. Whose plan? The adjusters don’t explain things. They’re like undercover agents for the free will of your choice.

Ebert said, “But the best-laid plans of mice and men sometimes stray. Random chance barges in, and its interference must be corrected.” In “The Adjustment Bureau,” released in 2011, Matt Damon plays a congressional candidate named David Morris, who walks into a men’s room he has every reason to think is empty, and who should exit one of the stalls but Elise Sellas, played by Emily Blunt. What was she doing here? Ebert answered, “You don't cross-examine a Meet Cute. The important thing is, these two people, who were never intended to meet, have that particular chemistry that means they're a perfect romantic match. They know it, we know it, and when their eyes and lips meet, their stories become entangled.”

Ebert continued, “Phillip Dick was intrigued by devices that allowed him to examine the mechanisms by which life unfolds. I think he voted for free will in the short run (the span of intelligent life on Earth, say), evolution for the middle distance (things develop according to underlying principles) and predestination in the long run (the universe will entropy and cease). A man and a woman whose eyes Meet Cute need only be concerned about the very short run.”

In the movie, David Morris becomes aware of certain men wearing suits and fedoras, who strangely start to show up on his way. He meets two of them: Mitchell and Richardson, played by Anthony Mackie and John Slattery. They explain that they work for a bureau that makes corrections when things go a little wrong. For example, David and Elise were not supposed to meet. What was she doing in the men’s room, anyway? For her sake and his, David must never see her again.

This is where it gets exciting. They do encounter each other again, once again by pure chance. However, this time, they recognize each other because they had met earlier. Ebert said, “It is possible the second time they see each other was intended to be the first time, in which case (if you follow me) they would not necessarily even notice one another. Seeing a woman on the bus isn't the same thing as getting into a conversation with her in a men's room. So answer me this: When the adjusters urge David to forget about Elise and never see her again, aren't they asking him to exercise his free will? Aren't they implying he has a choice?”

Ebert continued, “So you might think, but "The Adjustment Bureau" reveals a hidden level of reality by which players can be yanked out of the game. David is confronted in a cavernous industrial space and warned that if he doesn't straighten up, his memory will be erased. This space is reached through a doorway to a place that has no logical possibility of existence; it must be like the bedroom beyond Jupiter in "2001," which was summoned by a greater intelligence to provide the illusion of a familiar space for an unwitting subject.”

The story develops into a cat-and-mouse game mentally, where David and Elise, in love and feeling like they’re destine for each other, try to outsmart or escape the men in the suits and fedoras. This is fun, and because Matt Damon and Emily Blunt have an easy link, it doesn’t feel as ridiculous as it is. Underneath its obvious sci-fi genre, a romantic comedy is hidden.

Ebert said, “If you're like me, you're thinking the universe in this movie is run by a singularly inefficient designer. There is no room for chance in predestination. If there is a plan, you can't allow tinkering. There's a well-known sci-fi precept that warns if you travel back far enough in time and step on the wrong insect, you could wipe out the future.” By the time we meet a really serious senior adviser named Thompson, played by Terence Stamp, we begin to think that his employer has misbeliefs of majesty.

Thompson gives the appearance of being strictly in control and knowing exactly what to do, but his problem is, David and Elise have seen the reality and know they can’t be pawns of a plan. There’s even the exciting chance that the Adjusters themselves have some freedom of choice.

“The Adjustment Bureau” is a smart and good movie that could have been a great one if it took a little more chance. Ebert said, “I suspect the filmmakers were reluctant to follow its implications too far. What David and Elise signify by their adventures, I think, is that we're all in this together, and we're all on our own. If you follow that through, the implications are treacherous to some, not all, religions.” However, in the short run, the movie is somewhat a heartwarming entertainment.

You could say that this film is in the same vein as “Inception.” I feel like a lot of films fall in the same category as that film, seeing how they all are those mind-boggling type of films that really play with you mentally. See the movie, if you want to know what I mean. Just to let you know, this is a good movie. If you’re a Matt Damon fan, you will love this movie, I promise.

Stay tuned next week when I look at a heartwarming film in “Matt Damon Month.” I’m sorry for posting this late, I had completely forgotten to type this up today.

Good Will Hunting

I had a difficult time deciding what I was going to review this month, and after some thinking, I decided to use March to talk about one of my favorite actors of all time, Matt Damon. Let’s look at one of the best films ever made, and one of my favorites, “Good Will Hunting,” released in 1997.

It must be heartbreaking to be able to accept an intelligent person and still feel like you’re selling yourself short. A man can spend his whole life studying to be a mathematician – and yet watch helplessly while a high school dropout, a janitor, writes down the answers to questions the professor is surprised at.

It’s also heartbreaking with the intelligent person won’t recognize themselves, and that’s the most surprising problem of all in “Good Will Hunting,” the smart, moving film of a working-class kid from Boston.

The film stars Matt Damon as a janitor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who likes to party and roam the old neighborhood and likes to download entire libraries worth of material into his photographic memory. Stellan Skarsgard plays Lambeau, the professor, who gives a reward to any student who can solve a difficult problem. The next morning, the answer is written on a blackboard that is in the hall.

None of the students take credit for answering the question. Roger Ebert said in his review, “A few days later, Lambeau catches Will Hunting (Damon) at the board and realizes he's the author--a natural mathematical genius who can intuitively see through the thorniest problems.” Lambeau wants to help Will, enroll him in school, or maybe work together with him. However, before that can happen, Will and his friends are joyriding the neighborhood and beat up a man. Will also insults the cops a little and is arrested.

He’s a real tough guy. He sees nothing wrong with wasting his entire life being with his friends, drinking a few bears, holding down a blue-collar job. Ebert says, “He sees romance in being an honest bricklayer, but none in being a professor of mathematics--maybe because bricklaying is work, and, for him, math isn't.”

Ebert described, ““Good Will Hunting” is the story of how this kid's life edges toward self-destruction and how four people try to haul him back.” One is Lambeau, who gets probation for Will with a promise that he’ll find him help and counseling.

One is Sean McGuire, played by the late Robin Williams, Lambeau’s college roommate, now a community college professor who made a lot of mistakes in his own life, but is a true counselor. One is Skylar, played by Minnie Driver, a British student at Harvard, who falls in love with Will and tries to help him. Finally, there is Chuckie, played by Ben Affleck, Will’s friend since childhood, who tells him: “You’re sitting on a winning lottery ticket. It would be an insult to us if you’re still around here in 20 years.” Even though Chuckie has a point, Will doesn’t see it that way. Ebert said, “His reluctance to embrace the opportunity at MIT is based partly on class pride (it would be betraying his buddies and the old neighborhood) and partly on old psychic wounds. And it is only through breaking through to those scars and sharing some of his own that McGuire, the counselor, is able to help him.” Robin Williams gave one of his best performances as McGuire, especially near the end when he finally goes to Will repeating, “It’s not your fault.” “Good Will Hunting” may have found some of its inspiration in the life of Damon and Affleck. Both co-wrote the movie, both grew up in Boston, both are childhood friends, and both took youthful natural talents and used them to find success as actors. Ebert said, “It's tempting to find parallels between their lives and the characters--and tempting, too, to watch the scenes between Damon and Driver with the knowledge that they fell in love while making the movie.”

Ebert continued, “The Will Hunting character is so much in the foreground that it's easy to miss a parallel relationship: Lambeau and McGuire also are old friends who have fought because of old angers and insecurities. In a sense, by bringing the troubled counselor and the troublesome janitor together, the professor helps to heal both of them.”

The film has an ability to show the way these characters might really talk.

It was directed by Gus Van Sant, who sometimes seems to have it down pat when it comes to dialogue. Look at when Will and Skylar break up and say painful things and see how clear he makes it that Will is pushing her away because he doesn’t think he deserves her.

The resolution of the movie is very predictable. Really, the whole story is too. Ebert said, “It's the individual moments, not the payoff, that make it so effective.”

“Good Will Hunting” has been in fact strangely compared to “Rain Man,” despite “Rain Man” was about an autistic character who cannot and does not change, and “Good Will Hunting” is about a genius who can change, and grow, if he chooses to.

True, they can both do quick math in their heads. Ebert said, “But Will Hunting is not an idiot savant or some kind of lovable curiosity; he's a smart man who knows he's smart but pulls back from challenges because he was beaten down once too often as a child.”

Here is a character who has four friends who love and want to help him, and he’s threatened by their help because it means changing every one of his old, sick, dysfunctional defense devices.

Ebert noted, “As Louis Armstrong once said, “There's some folks, that, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.”” This movie is about whether Will is one of those people.

Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wrote this movie when they were both in college and they had pitched this to the film industry. As college dropouts who went through a lot in order to get this film made, especially using “Rocky Balboa” as their answer, this is a powerful movie. Especially getting Robin Williams in here, that really helped a lot. If you haven’t seen this, you should. There are so many great moments in this film that I can’t tell them all. A word of warning: the F word is used 154 times. Still, this is an inspirational movie about how you should never sell yourself short and always strive to be the best person ever.

Look out next week to see what I will review next in “Matt Damon Month.”