Moroni's Review of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

The very first book I read on my own was "The Hobbit" at age seven.  (I read it before I read the Book of Mormon.)  Then at ages eight and nine, I read "The Lord of the Rings" series.  As a young parent, I read all of these books to my kids.  In the days before our ranch had electricity, I would have my kids around me and read to them the works of J.R.R. Tolkien by candlelight.

So to say that this movie franchise is important to me would be an understatement.  Seeing these movies translated to the big screen for me has been a dream come true. When "The Fellowship of the Ring" came out in 2001, my excitement reached a fever pitch that had not been experienced since the original Star Wars trilogy.  And it did not disappoint.  It was everything I hoped for.  When "The Two Towers" came out, I already had tickets, and my then-wife, Temple, and I drove through a blizzard to see this movie, with our infant in a car seat.  We were driving past diesels that couldn't make it up the hill - just to see Middle Earth on the big screen.  For "The Return of the King", we went to a midnight showing - in sub-freezing temperatures.  They set up a medieval tent in the parking lot, and I had a cold, my nose dripping like a faucet, waiting to get into the theater.

In other words, "The Lord of the Rings" became a Christmas tradition for me for a few years, and, after that, when it was all done, it never really seemed like Christmas.

So it was with great expectation that I awaited the release of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey".  I so wanted for this movie to finally come out, and what a journey it was for this movie to arrive!

Years ago, there was an online poll about which director - other than Peter Jackson - would be fitting to direct a movie version of "The Hobbit".  The answers were mundane - Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, etc.  My answer was quick - Guillermo del Toro.  This was pre-Pan's Labyrinth.  I had only seen "Blade II" and "Hellboy" by this point.  But I knew - he was the man for the job.  So I was ecstatic when he was selected to helm "The Hobbit".  It was perfect.

Then came the problems with the rights being owned by the floundering MGM, along with sniveling from the Tolkien estate.  There were delays after delays, and, after two years, del Toro had to bail.  It was a devastating blow.  (He did retain screenwriter credits.)  Peter Jackson returned to direct, and it seemed like the devil himself tried to prevent this movie from being made - labor disputes, animal handler's complaints.  But it finally arrived.

So part of our family Christmas was for sixteen of us to file into two cars and head to the movie theater.  There was even a snow storm!  Several of my kids have read the book, and they were excited, especially my ten year-old son, Aidan.  We donned the 3-D glasses and were transported back to Middle Earth.

The previous trilogy was breathtaking, but this time it seemed as Peter Jackson filled the screen with more sweeping landscapes from his homeland.  It made me miss New Zealand!  If there was any place that I would chose to live, it would be New Zealand.  The music also carried many hints of the previous series.  We were transported back to a familiar place, and many familiar faces were there.  Ian Holm as the aging Bilbo, Elijah Wood as Frodo, Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Lady Galadriel, Andy Serkis as Gollum, and a 90 year-old and spry Christopher Lee as Sauruman.

One of the brilliant moves of Peter Jackson was to raid Tolkien's appendices for more material.  There are several back stories inserted to flesh out the story, and provide fodder for two more movies.  There is a dazzling introduction sequence that sets up the dragon Smaug and the loss of Erebor, the Lonely Mountain.  Radagast the Brown, Gandalf's associate, is inserted into the narrative to set up the Necromancer's evil invasion of Mirkwood.

The story sticks fairly close to the book apart from the added components of back stories.  Martin Freeman is Bilbo, right from the book.  There are so many dwarves that it is hard to get a good sense of who they are, apart from their sullen leader, played to the bone by Richard Armitage.

I was happy that they put more songs in the movie as J.R.R. Tolkien's writings are laden with songs.  The movie has more of the whimsical feel of the book.  That pleased me as well.

I didn't like how most of the orcs and goblins were CGI.  Call me old-fashioned, but I like my monsters wearing make-up.  The computer animation did allow for the creation of more grotesque creatures, though.  There, that is my sole complaint.

Otherwise, this movie is perfect and entertaining in every way.  It won't win any Oscars, but, in my book, it is the best movie of the year.  What need do I have to go see "Les Miserables" when I can just go see "The Hobbit" again?

Moroni's Review of "Cloud Atlas"

Early Mormon apostle Orson Hyde once asked, in prayer, to be shown the meaning of time and eternity.  He was shown in a dream a great cloud that he was told represented eternity.  There was a stream that flowed out of the cloud, arced around, and fed back into the cloud.  He was told that the stream represented time.

I have contemplated this dream quite often, trying to divine a meaning in it.  The cloud representing eternity is enormous, amorphous, even chaotic.  And what we call time is finite, follows its own course, but eventually ends, returning to the wellspring that spawned it.  I have many, many theories about time and space and eternity that would either sound crazy to people, or like a really great science fiction movie.

Personally, I think that Orson Hyde was onto something.  I think that the mystics of the East have also come close to understanding the substance of time and space.  I remember reading about an Eastern teacher trying to teach his student about time.  He cast a twig into a river and said that the twig represents our lives, and the river represents time.  The twig floating with the current is symbolic of our lives flowing along through time.  From the perspective of the twig, where is the river?  It is only where the twig is.

But then the teacher explained, "Where is the river?  Is it at the source?  Is it at each bend and turn?  Or is it where it feeds into the sea?"

The answer is - the river is everywhere at once.  So it is with time.  From our perception, time is linear and appears to flow with continuity from one moment to to the next.  But that is an illusion.  Like the river, time exists everywhere at once.  As a great, eternal cloud, as it were.

So when I walked out of "Cloud Atlas", I told my wife Martha, "This is either the worst movie I have ever seen, or it is the best movie I have ever seen.  I can't decide which.  I may have to see it another time to decide."

I went home and slept on it and decided that "Cloud Atlas" is indeed one of the best movies that I have ever seen,

I figured out why so many people don't like it.  It is very nonlinear.  The plot bounces us back and forth through time.  There are several distinct story lines - one in the mid 1800's, one in the 1930s, another in the 1970s, an episode in the modern day, another 150 years in the future, and a final one hundreds of years in the future.  The movie moves seamlessly between the time periods.  The editing techniques used to mesh these narratives together was nothing short of breathtaking.

In other words, there is not much in the way of conventional continuity in the narrative.  But that is the point.  Every story is happening at once, at the same time.

This movie is not for the dumbed-down masses.  It isn't sufficient to sit back and be entertained.  In order to understand the movie, it is required that the viewer think for the entire duration of the movie.  I think that's why people don't like it.  They have to think.

Before this movie came out, I knew nothing about it, except that it is directed by the Wachowski Brothers (er, brother and sister), along with Tom Tykwer.  I am a huge fan of the Wachowski siblings.  Of course, I loved "The Matrix".  Like "Cloud Atlas", I knew nothing about "The Matrix" when I walked in to see it and was completely wowed.  I loved "V For Vendetta", that anthem of libertarianism, and I even loved "Speed Racer".  So it was a given that I would go see this movie.

It is unique in many ways.  There is a superb ensemble of a cast (Tom Hanks, Hugh Grant, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Susan Sarandon, and others), and the genius is that each of these actors play a different character in each of the different timelines.  Each performer was able to display their acting prowess in the animation of very different characters.  Sometimes, they even played someone of a different ethnicity.  A black actor would play a white person.  A white person would play an Asian.  It was really ingenious.

There were hints of reincarnation, which traditionally is not a Mormon belief (but does have its argument in the doctrine of Multiple Mortal Probations).  So it is interesting fodder for thought.

And that is the genius of this movie - it makes you think.

It doesn't hurt that it is visually stunning.  For me, this is more than just a movie.  It is art.  This is what the movie experience should be about.

I never did go see it again.  I have to wait until it comes out on video.  Or just realize that, if all time exists at once, I am watching it right now.

Moroni's Review of "Hotel Transylvania"

I took my kids to the movies over Fall Break, and I let them pick the movie.  They picked "Hotel Transylvania".  So off we went.  I usually don't have high expectations for these types of movies.  Little did I know that this is an Adam Sandler movie, disguised in animation.  (No, we didn't see the 3D version.)

What this means is that there was plenty of humor that only adults would get, and it was chock full of references meant to tickle the fancy of parents who are drug by their kids to see a cartoon.  I like it when they do this in movies.  This ensures that both the parents and the kids have something they will enjoy, a little something for everyone. 

Adam Sandler plays Dracula, who is a widower.  He builds a resort for monsters where they can get away from the threat of humans.  The movie opens up with Dracula preparing for the 118th birthday of his teenage daughter, Mavis (played by Selena Gomez).  Mavis yearns to see the human world, but Dracula is an overprotective dad and creates an entire Potemkin Village for her populated with his zombie servants masquerading as "scary humans".  The purpose is to dissuade her from leaving.  In the meantime, all of their monster friends arrive at the resort to help celebrate the birthday.  Everything is thrown into chaos when a human backpacker named Johnny (played by Andy Samberg) shows up.  Dracula disguises him as a monster until he can figure out a way to get rid of him.  Of course, Mavis and Johnny become drawn to each other.

The movie is pretty simple, so there is no need to philosophize about this piece.  It is entertaining and has a wonderful cast of comedians.  There are plenty of gags.  But it was a hit with the kids.  My kids went home for days, quoting, "Blah, blah, blah!"

Moroni's Review of "The Cold Light of Day"

I have always loved spy movies.  As a child, I used to watch James Bond movies on ABC on Sunday evenings.  As a teen, I actually read the original Ian Fleming novels.  So when I saw the trailer for "The Cold Light of Day", I knew that I would use my two movie passes to see that film.  Martha and I headed into town for date night.

The movie starts out very intriguing.  Will Shaw - played by Henry Cavill, whom I recognized from "The Tudors" and as the new Superman from the upcoming "Man of Steel" - shows up in Spain for a family vacation.  His father, played by Brice Willis, was a diplomat, so the family was used to traveling around the world.  So this trip to Spain is kind of a regular thing for the family.  Will can scarcely stand being around his family - his dad, his mom (Caroline Goodall), his brother (Rafi Gavron), and his brother's girlfriend (Emma Hamilton).  They take a yacht out into the Mediterranean, but Will is on his phone constantly, talking business, and his father eventually chucks his phone overboard.  Upset, Will swims to shore to get on the phone and get some supplies.

When he gets back, he finds the boat trashed and his family missing.  He goes to shore again to try to get help, but the cops try to kill him.  He is rescued by his father, who turns out to be some sort of spy.  Will never knew this about his father, but, come on, if your dad is Bruce Willis, he is not going to be wasted as a desk clerk.  It turns out that Will's family is being held hostage in exchange for a mysterious briefcase that was in his father's possession.  Before Brice Willis can answer any other questions, he is assassinated by a sniper.  No more Bruce Willis.

Okay, stop the film right here.  Up to this point, the whole mystery on the Mediterranean was very intriguing.  It sucked me in.  It was different.  It was original.  Everything that happens after this point became very predictable, very Jason Bourne-ish, very used and tired, very... boring.

I can usually gauge movies on this - I either don't want them to end, or I can't wait for them to be over.  I couldn't wait for this film to be over.

The kidnappers don't care that Will doesn't know anything about the briefcase, and he must obtain it by a certain time, or his family dies.  He sets out to find the briefcase and comes across his dad's former boss, played by Sigourney Weaver.  She turns out to be a bad guy.  No surprise there.  As he goes along, he discovers that he never really knew his dad.  He gets some unexpected help from a young Spanish girl (played by the beautiful Veronica Echegui) who turns out to be his sister from an affair his dad had in his days as a spy.

Seriously, do I need to go on?  Wait until this movie comes out on video - which should be soon.  Better yet, go see a James Bond movie.  "Skyfall" should be coming out soon.

Moroni's Review of "The Dark Knight Rises"

Before I write this review, I guess I should admit that I am a fan of Tim Burton's "Batman".  It was surreal and gothic, like a fever dream.  I was even a fan of the old Batman TV show.  It was pastel and campy.  The problem with reboots is this - I am not that interested in a life-like reality where Batman might really exist.  Batman belongs within the confines of the comic book universe.  He does not belong in the real world.

For this reason, I have not really been able to get into Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy.  Lord knows I have tried.  They are too dirty and gritty.  And they don't feel like superhero movies.  I must say that I liked "The Avengers" much better.  I suppose that if you go to see this movie , don't watch it as a Batman movie - but as a crime drama, then it is pretty good.

Ah, expectations!

I took my wife Martha on a date to see the last installment of the franchise - "The Dark Knight Rises".  Christian reprises his role as Bruce Wayne/ Batman - years after the death of Harvey Dent, retired and suffering from debilitating injuries.  (I can relate.)  There's a bunch of Wall Street intrigue and corporate intrigue involving Wayne Industries that goes on that had my head eyes drooping.  The one thing that kept my eyes open was a thief/ spy named Catwoman, played by the delectable Anne Hathaway.  It seems as if the person behind this is a villain named Bane, a luchero from the League of Shadows, the secret society from the first movie.  Bane is played by Tom Hardy, and his performance was superb - except that the voice amplified by his mask was pretty grating and annoying.  Bane and his henchmen concoct a scheme that sends Bruce Wayne into a prison halfway around the world, leaving Ban free to capture the entire city of Gotham and impose martial law.

The only resistance is put up by small bands of rebels led by Commissioner Gordon, played by Gary Oldman, and a young cop named John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt.  Bruce Wayne finally liberates himself and returns to Gotham City to inspire and lead an all-out war against Bane and his allies.

To me, the poignant scenes were about seeing the metropolis in the clutches of evil men, reduced to life under tyranny.  It made me realize that we don't need thugs and criminals to reduce us to such a sordid state. We have the politicians in Washington that are pushing us in that direction anyway.  Where is a Batman when we need him?  The sad reality is that there are no superheroes to rescue us in our moment of dire need.  Something to think about as this sham of an election draws near.

This really is the best of the three movies.  So if you have bothered seeing the other two, then you must see this one - for closure, if anything.  But if you haven's seen any of these, go rent the Tim Burton movie instead.

Moroni's Review of "Ice Age: Continental Drift

Sorry.  The movie blog has been suffering.  Mainly because I have been busy.  Partially due to dread of having to write this review.

My daughter in college has been babysitting for one of my old high school friends.  My daughter tells me that my friend seldom puts on kids' movies for her daughter; she doesn't have the patience for them.  I wish that I had that luxury.  But I am here to tell you - once you have kids, you will watch your fill of children's movies - at the theater or at home.  You may want to spend your evening watching Sho-time television series or Skinemax.  But forget it.  Those days are over.  It's all kiddie movies for you, and you will spend all of your spare time will be spend watching movies with the kiddos, that the kiddos have picked.

That said, I have watched the first three "Ice Age" movies many times.  Many, many times.  My kids love them.  My wives love them.  To me, they are mildly entertaining, but mostly formulaic.  In other words, they are not good enough to watch them over and over and over again, the way my kids like to watch them.

This summer, I took my (then) wife and kids to the movies.  I let them pick which one we could see,  I was hoping they would pick "The Dark Knight Rises".  I mean - they're kids, and this is Batman.  But they picked "Ice Age: Continental Drift" instead, the fourth movie in the "Ice Age" franchise.

The familiar characters return - Manny the mammoth, his partner Ellie, Diego the sabertooth tiger, and Sid the sloth, along with other familiar characters like Scratt.  This time, the herd is split up by a cataclysmic schism in the continent.  Our regular characters take refuge with a gang of pirates sailing the seas on board a floating iceberg.  Of course, the pirates turn out to be bad guys.

I can say that there is nothing remarkable that sets this film apart from the other three.  Sure, there are some funny moments, but none of them enough to redeem the film.  My favorite character in all of the films is Sid, the sloth with a speech impediment, played brilliantly by John Leguizamo.  The villain in this movie is an ape named Gutt - played surprisingly by Peter Dinklage, who is better known in his role as the dwarf Tyrion Lannister in the "Game of Thrones" series.  I would never have guessed that it was him.

So I kind of had to endure the movie.  But the kids loved it (as did the ex-wife).  And that makes the whole thing worth it.  Maybe next time I can watch what I want...  Who am I kidding?

Announcement

Breaking News: After 13 years, Temple and I are ending our marriage. It may seem cliche, but we really love each other and are still the best of friends. We will continue raising our children together, just no longer as husband and

 wife. It is a very sad time for us, and yet I wish her the best. There are reasons for it, but I won't discuss it on a public forum. I won't tolerate people badmouthing Temple or dragging her name through the mud. There are reasons for the split, but honestly I have to take responsibility for this. If it is anyone's fault, it is mine. I will likely blog about this in coming days, but without embarrassing her. My thirteen years as a polygamist are over, and I will still defend this Principle until my dying day, as I will defend Temple. This photo was taken the evening it became final. I LOVE YOU FOREVER, TEMPLE!! ♥

Moroni's Review of "The Amazing Spiderman"

It is unfortunate that "The Amazing Spiderman" came so soon after the Spiderman trilogy, because I know many people who won't even go see it, because it is too soon for a reboot.  And it is unfortunate that many will compare it to the recent movies (including me), because it really is different.

First, I should say that I am a huge Sam Raimi fan, including his Spiderman series.  But "The Amazing Spiderman" is way better than Raimi's take.  I was always kind of disappointed in the special effects.  Whenever Peter Parker donned his suit and started wall-crawling, it always looked - well, fake to me.  The visual look of the new film is way slicker.

Next, Andrew Garfield is a better Peter Parker/ Spiderman.  Tobey Maguire had too much sweet, Midwestern charm.  You have to remember - Spiderman grew up and lived in New York.  Andrew Garfield is much more New York.

They marketed this movie by saying that they would go deeper into the origins of Spiderman - his parents' dark past, how he wound up with Uncle Ben and Aunt May.  And yes, they did.  But the whole back story was still very weak.

They did better with characterization - exploring the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle (played nicely by Martin Sheen and Sally Field, respectively).  The other roles are played well with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Denis Leary as her cop father, and a brilliant performance by Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors, who becomes the scaly villain.

The aspect I liked about the movie was how they lead up to Peter Parker deciding to become the superhero.  He gradually comes into his powers, and he takes some time deciding what to do with them.  That was the most human quality of the film.

I also liked that they made the web slinging the result of technology - like it was in the comics, instead of a superpower.

My kids also preferred this movie to the Sam Raimi trilogy.

One funny story - my three year-old son developed a callous on his ankle just a few days after seeing this movie, and he thought that he was turning into the movie's lizard villain.

Without Purse of Scrip

Follow my new blog here.

Moroni's Review of "Snow White and the Huntsman"

Occasionally, I will pick up a DVD at a movie rental (remember movie rentals?), look at the case, and think, "Oh, this looks good."

Then I will take it home, pop it in, and realize, "Hey, I saw this in the theater!  How is it that I didn't remember?"

Some movies are just that forgettable.  That's the way that "Snow White and the Huntsman" was.  I let my blog slide a little bit.  In the interim, I had gone to see three movies, and - for the life of me - I could not remember what one of them was.  It took a while to remember.  That's how forgettable this movie was.  It made little impact on me.

This adaptation of the old fairy tale had some awesome visual effects.  But this is one of those movies where you realize that special effects are not enough to redeem a movie.  They did have some awesome creatures, though.  And I think some of my younger kids would have liked this movie.

It is unfortunate that they selected Kristen Stewart for the role of Snow White.  She annoys me to no end.  Couldn't they have picked someone more.... Snow Whitey?  The delivery of her performance was such that I expected her to be wearing a John Deere baseball cap along with her armor.

Chris Hemsworth did an okay job as the huntsman sent to kill her, but then he takes pity on her and becomes her protector of sorts.  His thick Scottish accent was a bit over-the-top.  Why is it that Scottish accents are so prevalent in these types of movies?  Must every character sound like Shrek?  ("Donkey!")  And if I hear my wives gush about how good-looking he is one more time, I am going to puke.  Just saying.

The best performance of the movie was Charlize Theron as the wicked Queen Ravenna.  She was coldly beautiful and added a grace and an elegance to the movie that was chilling.

Halfway through the movie, I whispered to my wives, "So we are watching a Snow White movie with no dwarves?"

Don't worry.  There are dwarves.  And it took me a minute to realize that they were all actually famous actors with their faces superimposed on the bodies of little people - Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Brian Gleeson, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost.  I even read on Wikipedia (while I was still in the movie) that there were some Little People advocacy groups that protested that fact.  That is awesome.

There is a love triangle between Snow White, the rugged Huntsman, and her childhood friend, William, who had given her up for dead.  In case you are waiting for that subplot to resolve itself, if the romantic in you wants to see which man Snow White will pick, don't fret too much.  She never does pick.

But that's okay.  Just like my anesthesiologist told me before my colonoscopy last week - you won't remember a thing.

Moroni's Review of "Rock of Ages"

It was Father's Day, and, after a kind of hard week, I was ready for some lighter fare.  So when the girls told me that they would take me to a movie, I picked "Rock of Ages".

I didn't regret it.

The movie is cheesy.  But it is funny - sometimes unintentionally so.  All in all, it is great fun.

It seems that "Glee" has changed the landscape of our entertainment culture, making a musical like "Rock of Ages" possible.  All of the songs are big-hair anthems that I grew up with in the 1980s, and I couldn't help but finding myself singing along.

Who cares about the story when you have got great music like this?  Based on a Broadway play, the story tells the story of two young aspiring musicians - Drew Boley (played by Diego Boneta) and Sherrie Christian (played by the annoying Julianne Hough) - who move to Los Angeles in a 1980s that barely resembles the '80s I knew and grew up in.  They both meet at a rock club on the Sunset Strip called the Bourbon Club, owned by two rockers played by Russell Brand and Alec Baldwin (both of whom stole the show).

The story is centered around the final show of Arsenal, an imaginary rock band headed by Tom Cruise as the Axl Rose-esque Stacee Jaxx.  Cruise's performance is beautifully incoherent.  (All my wife Temple could notice was Jaxx's abs.  LOL)  There is a fiendish plot by Jaxx's sleazy manager (in a brilliant performance by Paul Giamatti) to take all of the proceeds for himself, and the mayor's wife (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones) who believes that rock and roll is Satan's music and is bound and determined to clean up the Strip and close down the club.

Every other tune is a rock classic from the '80s, and the characters break into song every couple of minutes. However, to me, having grown up in the '80s, it seemed a bit incongruous.  When did headbangers ever belt out "We Built This City" with passion?  The rockers I knew would have puked at the thought.  And the story takes place in 1987.  Which rocker was into Foreigner by then?

There were a couple of cool things.  I fought back waves of nostalgia when one of the scenes took place in Tower Records, one of my inner sanctums as a youth.  Rather than paying attention to the movie, I looked at the vinyl collection in the background.  Some set designer placed such gems as Christian Death and Killing Joke in the background.

The other fun part of the movie were the mash-ups.  Rarely was an '80s anthem sung by itself.  It was brilliantly combined with another classic.  "Juke Box Hero" with "I Love Rock 'N' Roll".  "We Built This City" with "We're Not Gonna Take It".

And the best part of the whole movie - a duet between Russell Brand and Alec Baldwin singing "Can't Fight This Feeling".

This is a movie that laughs at itself.  Hence, it is fun.  My wives and I loved it.  A few days later, my wife Temple bought the soundtrack.

Moroni's Review of "Prometheus"

I was old enough to remember the first movie in the "Alien" franchise.

Okay, I was nine years-old when it came out, and there is no way in hell my parents would let me go see a rated-R movie in the theater.  But three years later, this movie was ubiquitous on cable TV, and I watched it many, many times.

Now, the Alien  movies have had a significant impact on our culture, and we know the routine - the alien looks like an octopus, lays an egg in your chest, alien pops out of chest, and turns big and deadly.

But the first time I watched that movie, there was nothing like it.  You didn't know what to expect, and the morphology of the creature truly felt...  well, alien.  And unexpected.  The film was low budget, back in the day before there were big special effects.  The movie had to rely on good acting, suspense, and fleeting glimpses of the monster.  Much of the drama was left to your imagination.

Now jump 33 years into the future for the feature film "Prometheus".  It is no secret that this is a prequel to 1979's "Alien", and, once again, Ridley Scott is helming the project - one of my favorite directors.

My girls really didn't care to see this one, but they went with me, because they knew how much I wanted to see it.  So my feelings on it?  Kind of mixed.

Visually, the film is stunning.  The landscapes, the special effects, the cinematography - all of it very excellent.  In that way, the film blew me away.

The film tells the story of an archaelogical expedition to a faraway moon where evidence of an ancient civilization is located that might indicate the origins of the human species.  They locate evidence that this outpost met a horrific end, and soon that horror awakens and plagues the expedition.

The film truly captures the mystery and sense of the unknown that the first "Alien" film captured - the sense that we humans don't belong in outerspace, that we are out of our element, out of our domain, and that there are many nasty things out there that exist for no other reason than to do us bodily harm.

There was also a scene that will make any woman who has experienced pregnancy squirm.  My wife Temple spent most of the movie hiding behind her hands.

The acting was superb.  Noomi Rapace did an excellent job as the main character, Elizabeth Shaw.  Michael Fassbender as the andriod David stole the show.  Guy Pearce was unrecognizable in his prosthetics as the eccentric CEO of the Weyland Corp., a precursor to the amoral company that Ripley works for in the "Alien" franchise.  Charlize Theron had a disappointingly subdued role as the financier of the expedition - and daughter of Guy Pearce's character.  In fact, her role was the weakest link in the entire plot.  They really didn't explore it enough.

My biggest complaint was that they didn't explain everything.  The movie left you with more questions than answers.  When the movie ended, you felt vaguely dissatisfied with the way things turn out.

That doesn't mean that I don't recommend it.  And I truly hope that they will explore this prequel further to answer my unsettled questions.  Otherwise, "Prometheus" would become one hole in space.

Moroni's Review of "Men In Black 3"

Fifteen years ago, Martha and I took my dad's plural wife out to see a new movie called "Men In Black".  It was campy, funny, twisted and entertaining.  Both of my moms are from Mexico, and this one didn't speak English.  I remember that she was pleased that the opening sequence of the movie was in Spanish, and she liked that she could understand it.

Two years later, I met my second wife Temple, and she was a total MIB freak.  She adored this movie.  She thought that Will Smith was funny, and she kind of had a crush on Tommy Lee Jones.  (Ew.)  So it was inevitable that when "Men In Black 2" came out in 2002, that it was a date night for us.

A month or so ago, Temple insisted that she would be going to see "Men In Black 3".  I told her that it would be a date.  I reminded her that our first date together had been a Will Smith movie (Wild Wild West) that had ended with us making out in the theatre parking lot.  But we've been married for thirteen years, so "date night" included the kids.  That means no hot and heavy necking in the car, rather, buckling up car seats.

Temple had been psyching herself up for this movie and had been blaring the Pitbull song that is the theme song in her car, nonstop.  She was not disappointed after it was all over.

The movie tells of a long and tiring relationship between Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) that has become strained.  This was convincing, because there also seems to be a lack of chemistry between the actors that was once there.

The MIB franchise seems to produce some memorable villains.  Who can forget Vincent D'Onofrio's wonderful performance in the first movie?  Laura Flynn Boyle's role in the second film was kind of forgetable. I had to Google the movie to even remember that she was in it.  In the third installment, Jemain Clement was wonderful, but also totally unrecognizable.  It wasn't until later that I realized, "Hey, it's that guy from 'Flight of the Conchords'!"  He plays a villain called Borris the Animal, complete with all molar for teeth, and a scary creature that comes out of an ulcer in his palm.  (I hate ulcers.)  He escapes from a prison on the moon with an intent to travel back in time to kill Agent K, who put him in prison to begin with.

Agent J must then travel back to 1969 to rescue the young Agent K, played by Josh Brolin.  I have to admit - Josh Brolin's impersonation of Tommy Lee Jones was uncanny.  It was Spot.  On.  It was arguably the best thing of the movie.

Another brilliant piece was the cameo of Bill Hader playing Andy Warhol, who - of course - is involved with the Men In Black Agency.

These things - along with the soundtrack - were the best part of the movie.  The rest was kind of formulaic, lacking the spark of the original movie.  Don't get me wrong.  It was enjoyable.  Just not earth shattering.

That didn't keep Temple from dancing to Pitbull as the credits rolled up.  But trust me.  That was earth shattering - and worth it - enough for me.

One interesting note: the climax of the movie takes place at Cape Canaveral, Florida.  Our three year-old son Avery became excited when he saw the location, stood up and started shouting, "Hey, I remember that place!  Remember when we went there to feed the ducks?"  Must have been another movie, because I have never been there.

Moroni's Review of "Dark Shadows"

I have liked Tim Burton for a long, long time.  Years ago, when I was a teen, "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" was campy and weird (as well as quotable).  "Beetlejuice" was every goth boy's dream (complete with Winona Ryder dressed in black).  By the time "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood" came out, Tim Burton had taken his craft beyond art to perfection.  This culminated in "Big Fish".  But after that, he began to fizzle.  It seemed almost as if he were becoming a parody of himself.  He was settling into the niche of "weirdness" that he had invented, mostly because people expected him to.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - to say that it is "a Tim Burton movie" doesn't carry the same weight anymore.

I feel the same way about Johnny Depp.  He was an actor's actor.  His goal always seemed to be to make himself as unrecognizable as possible - from the tortured character in Edward Scissorhands to the grinning fiend in Ed Wood.  He has always been a true artist's canvas - starting out blank and allowing expression to fill out every corner.  But lately it seems as if every character is another variation of Captain Jack Sparrow.

So that makes for a disappointing combo for Tim Burton's new movie "Dark Shadows", starring (surprise) Johnny Depp.

"Dark Shadows" is based on a TV show from the late '60s.  I, myself, was born and raised in the '70s, but I have no recollection of this TV show.  I must have been too sheltered.

Johnny Depp plays a vampire named Barnabas Collins from the 1700s.  After his lover is cursed and dies, Barnabas is turned into a vampire by an obsessed witch (played by the lovely Eva Green).  He is chained in a coffin and forced to remain for 200 years until he is accidentally dug up.  He finds the world of 1972 Maine to be bizarre, and he takes up abode with his relatives to run the family fishing business against a competing fish company - which just happens to be run by Eva Green's character.

I wanted this movie to be more interesting, but it wasn't - despite great performances by Michelle Pfieffer and Helena Bonham Carter.  To me, it just seemed as if Johnny Depp was playing the same character he played in "Sweeney Todd".

The most enjoyable part of the movie was the music - T-Rex, Moody Blues, Black Sabbath, and a wonderful cameo by Alice Cooper, who played himself (although with wrinkles digitally removed to make him look 40 years younger).

This movie would be a great movie to watch from home.  On DVD.  Not paying bucks to watch in the theatre.  Save that for "The Avengers".

Moroni's Review of "The Avengers"

Generally, I am a typical postmodernist and have a undefined disdain for anything too mainstream, sneering at anything designed to please the masses.  But there is a part of me that I have retained since childhood that thinks superheroes are frickin' cool.  As a result, I see just about every superhero movie that comes out every summer.  It kind of helps that I have kids who love superheroes, too.

Just because I see just about every superhero movie doesn't mean that I LIKE every movie featuring a caped crusader.  For instance, the "Dark Knight" series - I really WANT to like them.  I think Christopher Nolan is an excellent film maker.  But they don't move me.  I can't find myself excited for them the way I liked Tim Burton's version of Batman.

Marvel has come up with several movies with different heroes that lead up to the movie "The Avengers".  Some of them have been really good movies, some of them not so good.  "Iron Man" was really good.  Robert Downey, Jr. was really made for this role.  "Iron Man 2" was kind of dull.  "Thor" was a really  good movie.  "Captain America" - I wanted that movie to be good, but I was extremely disappointed when the movie devolved into a series of montages of the patriotic hero fighting with no story.  They have made a couple of movies with the Hulk, and I think that I am the only person on the planet who thinks that Ang Lee's verion (the first one) was more than a movie, but a work of art.

As we were on the way to the theater, I told my wives that I was afraid that I would be disappointed.  I didn't want to have any expectations for this movie, because I didn't want to be let down.  I wanted so badly for this movie to be good, but I knew that it probably wouldn't be.  I even made a prediction - the whole movie would build the plot up, and they wouldn't become the Avengers until the very end.

Boy, was I wrong.  This movie was action-packed from start to finish.  This movie reduced me to a quivering preteen boy.  With its apocalyptic battle scenes, it is everything that the "Transformers" movies tried to be and failed.  I guess I should have expected this from director, Joss Whedon, who created one of my favorite TV shows of all time - "Firefly".

The movie starts out with Loki, the villain of the preceeding "Thor" movie (played with pizzazz by Tom Hiddleston) finding a way to come to earth by means of the Tesseract, the mystical device from the "Captain America" movie.  So Nick Fury - in a disappointingly subdued role by Samuel L. Jackson - puts the Avenger initiative into effect, which is to assemble a team of superheroes to protect the earth.  They recruit the narcissistic Tony Stark, aka. Iron Man as well as the conservative Captain America, a role reprised by Chris Evans.  They track down the bitter Dr. Banner, played wonderfully by Mark Ruffalo, who refers to his alter-ego as the "Other Guy".  Chris Hemsworth again plays Thor, sent from Asgard to track down his adopted brother, Loki.  The team is completed by the Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson (rawr!) and Hawkeye, played by Jeremy Renner.  The last two characters were my favorite.

The effort to create an cohesive team fails when it becomes evident that every one of the superheroes has a super ego.  They can't seem to work together - which I think was the most compelling component of the movie.  Imagine that you are blessed with tremendous power, and suddenly you are expected to cooperate with someone equal powers and equally opinionated?  The team doesn't become effective until they learn to work in conjunction with each other.  But when they do - watch out!

Loki finds a way to use the Tesseract to open a portal in the universe that unleashes a hellish army - on Manhattan, of course.  Because the story would be different if it was in Concho, Arizona.  And the baddies seem bent on destroying familiar landmarks first - the Chrysler Building, Grand Central Station, etc.  The film culminates on a pitched battle - superheroes against aliens, trying to save us all.

I won't divulge too much.  But the audience reacted with laughter in one part when the Hulk confronts Loki, and Loki sneers at the green monster and says, "How dare you, you dumb brute!  I am a god!"  And the Hulk proceeds to turn Loki into a superhuman piñata.

This movie is a roller coaster ride.  It doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is - which is a fun escape for two hours.  It was a good way to start the summer.  I plan on going back - again - with the kids.

Moroni's Review of "The Lucky One"

So a man with more than one wife is expected to see his fair share of chick flicks...

And you can't get more chick-flicky than a movie based on a novel by none other than chick-flick guru, Nicholas Sparks.  Nicholas Sparks is known for coming up with the printed format for stimulating estrogen.  It doesn't matter that his work is formulaic, it gets tremendous response from the ladies.

These are the types of books that my wife Temple eats up.  (Although she does have a geeky side that loves sci fi/ fantasy.)

So this past weekend, it was a warm, spring day.  I took both of the ladies to Lotus Garden for lunch, and then I said, "Do you guys want to see 'The Lucky One'?"

"What's that?" they asked.

"It's based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks.  You know.  The author of 'The Christmas Box'."

I make this joke all the time.  It always gets a rise from Temple.  Every time.  "The Christmas Box" is NOT written by Nicholas Sparks, but by Richard Paul Evans, who is Temple's favorite, favorite author - another scribe of all things feminine.  The first time, I really did confuse them - what guy wouldn't?  They write the same type of book and market them in plain covers with nothing more than a title encased by a pretty vignette.

So the three of us went to see "The Lucky One", me seated and flanked by my two wives.

The beginning was promising, with some action sequences in Iraq.  But these were short-lived.  Zac Efron (with a puffy face now that he is older) plays a Marine haunted by his experiences in the war.  While in battle, he finds a photo of a beautiful young woman (played by the fetching Taylor Schilling, who is the libertarian pin-up girl, having played Dagney Taggart in the movie adaptation of "Atlas Shrugged").  He believes this photo saved his life, and so he sets out of a trek to find the girl.  He finds her running a dog kennel in North Carolina.  And instead of returning the photo to her - which is his intention - he gets a job at her kennel and slowly worms his way into her life.

During the movie, much to Temple's annoyance, I whispered in her ear predictions about the plot.  OF COURSE there is a "another guy" who is trying to thwart this budding love.  OF COURSE she finds out about the photo (which is the weakest link in the plot). OF COURSE she wants him out of her life.  OF COURSE he offers his sincerest apologies and wins the girl (which never happens in real life).

Before the movie even started, I KNEW that my wives would absolutely adore this movie.  Before this movie even started, I KNEW that I would give it a bad review.  Sure enough, as the end credits started rolling, I started plotting the horrible things I would say about this movie as I secretly wiped the tear from my eye.

Moroni's Review of "The Wrath of the Titans"

Envision a world where everyone wears a tunic and speaks in a British accent, except you. You wear a tunic and speak in an unabashedly Australian accent...

Now, envision a world without internet, without cell phones, no Blu-ray, no DVDs, not even VHS. A world without satellite TV, even without cable... But especially a world without CGI. This was the world of my childhood in the '70s.

There were only three channels (well, four, if you count PBS. But no one watched anything on that.) Since there was a lack of options, one's TV schedule was sacred. If you wanted to watch cartoons, you might squeeze in a few before school on "Wallace & Ladmo". Otherwise you had to wait until Saturday morning.

On Saturday, there was no sleeping in. You were up before the crack of dawn - right at that moment when the late-night infomercials ended, and the animation started. Scooby, Grape Ape, Underdog, the ageless Bugs Bunny, Tarzan, the Lone Ranger, with a good measure of Schoolhouse Rock in between...

By early afternoon, once the cartoons ended, dad might join you for "Star Trek" reruns (the old ones... with William Shatner). Or the matinee adventures. Those were my favorites. You know, the movies with claymation special effects. "Jason & the Argonauts", "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad", "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger"... I loved these movies. Especially the clay monsters. You knew it was fake. You could see every flaw in the effects. But you loved it anyway.

My youth was spent on these movies. By the time "Clash of the Titans" came out, we had cable. Those early days of cable - it was one of the first movies that I was able to watch over and over and over.

When the new version of "Clash of the Titans" came out a couple of years ago, I liked it, but it did not have the same magic of the first one.

I kind of feel the same way about its sequel, "The Wrath of the Titans".

In our modern age, CGI has replaced the old claymation. But there is so much going on on the screen that you never get a good look at what you're seeing. It goes too fast, and you don't have time to actually realize what it is, or scrutinize anything. You can't see the creature long enough to even tell what it looks like.

Don't get me wrong. It's freaking cool. But slow it down a bit! Sheesh!

Add onto that the grainy, almost black-and-white film stock that is in vogue right now, and that makes the whole movie imperceptible. It is like watching a movie through a dream fog - or watching a UHF channel with a really bad antenna. I don't WANT my fantasy movies to be grainy! Save that for art flicks or film noir! I want my fantasy films to be crystal clear and panoramic.

Other than that, it is a great movie. The performances were good. Sam Worthington is very likeable, but he plays the same character in every movie. The movie also featured Liam Neeson (My kids: "Look, it's Qui Gon Jin!"), Ralph Fiennes ("Look, it's Voldemort!"), and Danny Huston (Me: "Hey, it's the scary vampire from '30 Days of Nights'!).

The action was fast-paced taking them from fighting a chimera, to huge cyclops in a forest to a moving maze to fighting a big lava guy.

But when the movie was over, I was like, "Huh? That's it? It's over already?"

In other words - unfulfilled... disappointed...

However, I recognize that this might just be the cynicism of adulthood settling in. Because Aidan, my ten year-old son, loved the movie. He rates these types of movies based on how many kinds of monsters they have. This movie had a whopping SIX MONSTERS. Pretty good, in his mind.

Moroni's Review of "The Hunger Games"

When I walked into the theater to see "The Hunger Games", I admit - I knew nothing about it. Except that there was a lot of hype about it. Which is unfortunate for this review, because hype creates expectation.

I am no foreigner to hype. Nor am I a stranger - as a 42 year-old man - to teen fiction. I read the entire Harry Potter series - twice. And I enjoyed them. I also looked forward to the movies.

Ah, I suppose that the inevitable Harry Potter comparison is inevitable. And that's too bad, because they are totally different.

I went with my teen daughter who - true to the post-modern nature of her dad - had read these books before the hype started. Maybe it's because I hadn't read the books. But I just couldn't see what the big deal was.

I found the story - and visual design of the film - to be bleak and dark. This is not a feel-good movie, portraying a despotic government that selects teens from every district to participate in a gladiator-style competition to the death. (I wonder if our society is not too far from this?)

The best part of the movie were the actors' performances. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is a great newcomer. She captures the duality of Katniss's fear and determination with flawless ease. The other teen actors were not as good (except the actress who plays the ill-fated Rue). It was nice to see Wes Bentley in a movie. After "American Beauty", I expected promising things from him, and he sort of disappeared from the silver screen. Stanley Tucci, as always, was brilliant. Those were some huge dentures that he was wearing. It was nice to see Lenny Kravitz once again make the transition from music back to acting. Donald Sutherland's performance was bland. Anything with Woody Harrelson is going to be worth watching.

But Elizabeth Banks stole the show as Effie Trinket. Not only was she unrecognizable in her bizarre makeup, but her forced magnanimity as she participates in the wholesale kidnapping of children was disturbing.

Maybe part of my problem with this movie is that I am forgetting that it is a trilogy. I wanted to see justice by the end of the first movie, but that is probably being held in reserve for the third (and last) movie. But this was a very dark first chapter.

In brief - I liked the movie. But it did not live up to the hype. See it, and judge for yourself. It is Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" meets "The Truman Show".

I would suggest this movie only for older kids since it portrays children being forced to commit unspeakable acts of murder against each other.

Moroni's Review of "John Carter"

So why would a Mormon polygamist write a review about the new Disney movie "John Carter"?

Maybe because most of the movie was filmed in and around Big Water, Utah - a place made notorious by the late polygamist, Alex Joseph.

Maybe because the author of the "John Carter of Mars" series, Edgar Rice Burroughs, conceived the idea of the first novel while vacationing in Springerville, Arizona - just minutes away from where I live. (In fact, the entire opening of "A Princess of Mars" was set on the hills and lava beds around Springerville.)

But mainly, this polygamist was excited for this movie, because as a child, I was an avid fan of the John Carter series. As a ten year-old, I collected beat-up and well-read copies of all the John Carter books, all the Tarzan books, and all the Conan books. I was ecstatic when "Greystoke" came out. I was disappointed when the R-rating of Arnold Schwartzenegger's "Conan the Barbian" prevented me from being able to see it (until I snuck a couple of viewings on late-night cable). I was also thrilled when Jason Moama's version of "Conan" came out (and a bit let down when I saw it.)

The release of "John Carter" was a dream come true - to finally see the iconic character from my youth come to the big screen. Edgar Rice Burrough's tale of a Civil War veteran magically transported to Mars spoke to a child's desire for larger-than-life adventures. There were swords, there were tall aliens with four arms, there was a buxom, red-skinned princess wearing few clothes and always needing to be rescued, and there were spider-men that ripped your head off and lived inside your body.

What more could a boy ask for?

To have a big screen version - that's what!

They have been talking about making this into a movie for a long time. In fact, John Carter came "this" close to becoming the first feature-length cartoon, beating out "Snow White". There were talks about Robert Rodriguez helming this piece. (It would have been a much different and very campy version.)

So it was with great anticipation that I donned the 3-D glasses within the 6-story IMAX at Arizona Mills. (It was my birthday weekend, no less.)

My take on it? Not disappointed! I have not enjoyed a 3-D experience like this since "Avatar"!

I know that the critics have panned this movie. I know that it has not done well in the box office. But this is the best movie I have seen in a while. Put art and pretense aside for a minute - this movie was all about adventure and being a child again, and it was a swashbuckling success in my book!

They have said that this movie was expensive to make. (You can tell.) It didn't garnish the returns in the box office that they expected. The demographic was men over the age of twenty-five. Duh! The people who wanted to see this were geek-men (like me) who read the books. You know, people who are old enough to know who Franz

Frazetta is.

Critics say that the movie lacked big-name actors to draw movie-goers. Taylor Kitsch was perfect as John Carter as well as believable, rugged and yet just pretty enough to resemble the John Carter of the Frazetta paintings. And Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris... Ah, I have fond memories of Lynn Collins in "True Blood". She brought a modern confidence and bad-assery to the character that the original novel lacked, being not just scantily clad, but being a politician, warrior and inventor as well. Willem Dafoe has always been one of my favorite actors, and now he has portrayed one of my favorite aliens - the four-armed Tars Tarkas. Since his performance was largely voice and motion-captured, he is not visibly recognized, but anyone who recognizes his gravely voice will be pleased to enjoy his excellent performance.

Visually, this movie has no equal. The design of the film was very art nouveau and had the feel of an old 1930s Flash Gordon reel. The sets and scenery were explosive. You actually believed you were on Mars. The plot was quite good. It stuck fairly close to the original novel, although it did take some artistic license (the Thurns, the 9th Ray, etc.) to explain the implausibility of being transported to Mars. But let's be real - the story is 100 years-old. The science is a little lacking, so a better explanation was needed. And I did like the Zecharia Sitchin aspect that the writers added... Just enough to appeal to my inner conspiracy theorist.

I class movies into two categories - movies that you can't wait to be over, and movies that you hope never end. This movie was the latter. It doesn't have high aspirations beyond taking the viewer into a world of fantasy, and it succeeded. I do recommend. It is "Flash Gordon" meets "Stargate".

Since I am a Mormon polygamist, I feel inclined to comment on whether this movie is proper for kids to watch. I do recommend this movie for kids. It is clean and appropriate. John Carter - with his heroic leaping about and swinging of swords, boulders and chains - appeals to little boys as much as he did to me when I was a little boy. Dejah Thoris is a beautiful princess, so the girls will love her. But since many of my daughters are tomboys, they love that she kicks ass with a sword. My tiny boys loved the aliens, especially the baby aliens that hatch from eggs. In fact, my three-year old has asked for a "baby alien costume". Disney Marketing, please don't fail me now!

Moroni's Movies

Hi there! My name is Moroni. I am a polygamist in rural Arizona. No, I am not the weird, pioneer dress type of polygamist. (Although I wonder how creepy it might be if I wore pioneer dresses.)

For years, I have blogged about my lifestyle, but I have sooooo much more to talk about! ;) My passion are movies, music and books. I thought it night be interesting to create a forum where I can discuss these things.

I plan on making this informal. I will review new releases, but I intend on reviewing older movies as well. So I hope you enjoy, and feel free to comment!