Moroni's Review of "Star Trek Into Darkness"

"Star Trek" has been a part of my life since I was a child.  My dad loved the TV show, and some of my first memories are watching re-runs on Saturday with him.  (I was really scared of the white ape with the horn.) Over the years, I have been a dedicated fan - the motion pictures, the newer TV shows.  I was even a fan when the franchise became ridiculous (Star Trek V, anyone?)  or cheap.  (They used the same footage of the Klingon ship blowing up in "Star Trek: Generations" as they did in "Star Trek VI".)

That said, I have been waiting for this movie (the sequel to the 2009 reboot) for many, many months.  But this is a difficult review to write.  How do you write about a movie that centers around a huge secret plot surprise?  Sure, it's all over the internet, but I am opting not to give away any spoilers.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" returns with the crew of the Enterprise shortly after we left them.  Captain Kirk (played to the "T" for Tiberius by Chris Pine) gets reprimanded for his rogue behavior, but this is short-lived when a terrorist attack occurs in a futuristic London, perpetrated by a Star Fleet operative gone bad named John Harrison (played by Benedict Cumberbatch - say that three times really fast.)  The Enterprise travels to the edge of the Neutral Zone with the Klingon Empire where Kirk and the others are plunged into a conspiracy that may cost them their lives and peace in the entire Federation.

First of all, J.J. Abrams proves that he is the man to successfully reboot this franchise.  The thing I like about his vision is that he gives the movie the same feel that the original series possessed - the drama, the spectacular fist fights, something that previous movies or TV shows greatly lacked.  This is the Star Trek of my childhood - but with much cooler special effects.  The movie is fast-paced and exciting from start to finish.  If he can do for "Star Wars" what he did for "Star Trek", then I am happily awaiting the year 2015.

I am a huge fan of Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC show "Sherlock".  So I was pleased to learn that he would be playing the villain.  He steals the show in every sense of the word, burying himself into his villainous role every bit as much as Ricardo Montalban.  (Can I say that?)

Zachary Quinto is once again perfect in his reprisal of Spock, and Zoe Baldana is a kick-ass Uhuru.  Simon Pegg gives comic relief as Scotty.  But the other characters (Karl Urban as Bones, John Cho as Sulu, and Anton Yelchin as Chekov) were curiously lacking, like backdrops, rather than characters.  The beautiful Alice Eve takes on the role of Dr. Carol Marcus, the role made famous in 1982 by Bibi Bisch.  It was nice to see Peter Weller in the role of Admiral Marcus.  I just recently watched "Buckaroo Banzai" online and was wondering what ever happened to him.

And if the original "Star Trek" was a little cheesy, well, there is a very cheesy scene where they practically recreate a scene right out of "Star Trek II", complete with a character shouting out another character's name.  But you soon forget the cheese, because, all in all, this movie is a very fun ride.

Seriously, though, that's all that I khan tell you...

Moroni's Review of "Oblivion"

It's been a while since I have reviewed a movie, and that's because it's been a long time since I have been to the  movies.  It's tough in this economy.  So my wife and I took a long-deserved date night and went to see "Oblivion", starring the megastar, Tom Cruise.

I went into this movie knowing absolutely nothing about it, and as a result, I absolutely loved it.  This is one of those movies that - like any M. Night Shyamala movie - depends on the element of surprise to sustain its plot.  Based on a graphic novel by Joseph Kosinski (who also wrote, produced, and directed the film), this is a sweeping, post-apocalyptic epic that will hold you glued to your seat.  About the best thing I can say about this film is that it is reminiscent of a Philip K. Dick story.

It is set several decades in the future after a devastating alien invasion by an alien race called the Scavs.  We won the war, but at a terrible cost. The earth is so badly damaged that it can no longer sustain life. Most of the human population has relocated to a moon over Saturn, and a small contingent of humans are left on Earth to "clean up", as an element of the Scavs remain on the planet floor.

The best aspect of this film was the visuals - and not just the special effects, which were extraordinary.  But the landscapes.  Never would one imagine that a post-apocalyptic earth would retain such stark beauty.

The performances were excellent.  Tom Cruise was Tom Cruise, just as Morgan Freeman was Morgan Freeman.  They are both established character actors.  Andrea Riseborough gives a striking performance as Tom Cruise's jealous wife, and Ukranian actress Olga Kurylenko plays the mysterious girl who haunts his dreams.

The  movie is action packed and does exactly what a movie is supposed to do - give one a couple of hours of escape.  It is rare to experience a riveting science fiction epic, and this movie is certainly not one to be missed.

Gathering For Zion Festival 2015

I am pleased to announce the Gathering For Zion Festival in Gallatin, Missouri in June, 2015.  I'm going to be there.  Are you??




















<iframe src="http://files.bannersnack.com/iframe/embed.html?hash=bzn8ra0s&bgcolor=%23000000&wmode=opaque&t=1360114641" width="478" height="75" seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

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.