Unprofessional Movie Thoughts: Captain America

“Captain America, please don’t suck.”  These words, or words similar to them are the mantra that comic nerds and fan boys have been uttering since the news first broke that there was going to be a Captain America movie.  As the final piece to the upcoming Avengers movie puzzle, I am happy to announce that Captain America doesn’t suck.  In fact, it’s easily one of the best super hero movies to date.  A bold statement, I know.  Follow me back a few years and I’ll explain why the Cap’n had me so enthralled.

With the advent of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movie in 2002, I developed the basic expectation that a super hero movie was going to be a entertaining, if somewhat flawed undertaking.  As the years have marched on and the studios behind the burgeoning super hero movie franchise have gained experience and more versatile directors, my expectations for super hero movies have grown.

The problem with comic book-based super hero movies is that there will always be a broad gap between the viewers; those that know and follow the comics, and those whom do not.  With one group of viewers, there is often massive amounts of existing lore to deal with, lending expectations to how a story and character is going to develop.  With the other, uninitiated group there’s the need to explain things well enough so that they aren’t completely lost.  Thus, the advent of the backstory or origin movie.  We’ve seen this with both DC and Marvel comics heroes, with varying degrees of success.  I won’t belabor this point too much more, as you’ve either been keeping up with super hero movies up to this point or you haven’t.  What’s important to keep in mind is that directors and writers of these new super hero movies have two distinct camps to cater to, and the balance can be perilous, especially when dealing with particularly popular or iconic characters.

Now, back to Captain America.  I’ve already stated that this movie is easily one of the best super hero movies to date.  Without giving away the important parts of the movie, here’s what you can expect.  Almost the entirety of the movie is set in the 1940′s, with World War II sweeping into full swing.  Not content to let others fight his battles for him, a young, impressionable, and sickly Steve Rogers attempts to enlist multiple times.  Turned away each time, Rogers doesn’t give up hope that he’ll get a chance to do his part.  Circumstances align, destinies are altered, and sickly Steve Rogers, a no-name kid from Brooklyn is enlisted into an experimental super-soldier program designed to combat a group of men so evil even the Nazis don’t want to play with them.

There’s a good bit more to the story, but that’s enough to get you up to speed.  Now on to why the movie works.  First, I have to again commend Marvel its casting.  Chris Evans is astounding as Rogers/Captain, Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant in every frame, the supporting cast is superb and Hayley Atwell is stunning as Peggy Carter, a resilient and capable British agent and Captain’s main love interest in the movie.  The acting is superb, the musical score is pitch perfect, and the direction is very matter of fact.  I happened to watch the film in 3D and it works quite well with the movie, although I will assert that the movie stands up under its own merits without falling back on 3D gimmicks as a crutch.

Not only is Captain America a good summer super hero movie, it’s just a plain good movie.  Captain is depicted as a true hero, an honest and good guy.  While the patriotic overtones of the character are evident, the core of what makes Captain such an interesting character is that at his core he is a good man.  I love the serious, brooding nature of The Dark Knight, but it’s refreshing to see a super hero movie featuring a classic character who does his best to do what’s right because that’s what he should do.   Vengeful, brooding heroes with dark pasts and darker nemesis are wonderful.  It’s just nice to see a super hero movie now and then who’s not ashamed to stand in the light.

Human Torch who? Chris Evans shines as Captain America.

Trumping my fears and in many cases exceeding my expectations, I want YOU to go see Captain America.

 

Unprofessional Movie Thoughts: Green Lantern

From this...

I’ll come right out and say it.  Green Lantern’s one of those weird movies that falls between easily defined classifications.  That makes it hard for me to say whether it was “good” or “bad”.

... to this.

Let me first state that I was entertained.  Let me also state that while I love comics and Marvel, my favorite childhood superhero comes from DC comics.

That would be this guy.

… and that’s the rub.  Green Lantern’s no Dark Knight.  While I don’t hold that a hero movie has to be gritty and visceral to be enjoyable, there does have to be a coherent, focused narrative that’s driven by a protagonist or set of protagonists that are at once believable and compelling.

A good example of how to make a compelling super-hero movie based on a character with larger than life powers already came out this summer.  That movie was Thor.  And really, that’s probably the better comparison to use.  Green Lantern’s heavy on the computer effects, but given the nature of the character that’s to be expected.  Necessary, even.  I would argue that is also why previous iterations of the Green Lantern series have been pretty much exclusively cartoons and computer-animated in nature.

In case you didn’t know, the basic gist of the Green Lantern story is that a human man by the name of Hal Jordan is chosen to become Earth’s first Green Lantern.  He subsequently discovers that there are thousands of other lanterns spread throughout the universe and their job is essentially to safeguard the galaxy from evils both internal and external.  To aid them in this, the Lanterns are given their iconic rings.  Green in this universe, is tied to willpower, and the rings allow the bearer to bring into reality essentially anything that they can imagine, as long as they have the will to do so.  There are other rings that coincide with other emotions but the important one for now is green.

There’s a lot more going on in the universe, and as one might expect, humans coming late to the party means that there are a lot of aliens wearing rings that see Hal’s joining as something of a blemish on the Lantern’s distinguished record.  I’m really going to stop with the background now.  There’s aliens, there’s universe-threatening dangers, one dude gets an awesome ring that lets him make what he imagines.  It’s just about every kid’s dream.

Honestly, the story's kind of like what Mass Effect's Commander Shepard faces. Except without the rings. And I like Shepard more than Ryan Reynold's Hal Jordan.

To put things into the simplest perspective, I enjoyed myself in Green Lantern.  I also went with three friends, all of whom are MASSIVE Green Lantern fans (T-shirts and rings were worn by them).  I have a basic understanding of the lore, but their knowledge base far outstrips my own.  And you know what?  They watched the movie.  They laughed at the jokes, they enjoyed themselves, and when the movie was done, there were no raging tantrums, no thrown chairs, no vile, vindictive outbursts against the movie producers.  They actually seemed to like it.

And this is odd to me.  You see, before going to see the movie, I looked at a few movie reviews, checked the somnambulent rhetoric of the masses on Rotten Tomatoes, and the near-unanimously poor ratings I saw had me going into the movie with abysmal expectations.  Part of me suspects that my friends wanted the movie to be good and thus were pleased that the movie got made, even if certain aspects might not have completely meshed with their hopes or expectations.

From the perspective of someone with a more passing knowledge of Green Lantern lore, I have to judge the movie on its own merits, rather than a long history of interest in the series.  The direction is a bit choppy for my tastes.  I love a well-narrated movie, but using it as exposition always borders on being dangerously close to “telling” rather than “showing” which, to me is one of the gravest sins one can commit in a movie.  Green Lantern dances along that border from time to time.

I found that the acting was passable to good.  Ryan Reynolds is getting a lot of nerd-heat for his portrayal of Hal Jordan.  I thought he did a serviceable job, but that’s from a layman’s perspective.  A few of the characters like Blake Lively’s Carrol Ferris were a bit more wooden, but some of that could be lack of direction or writing rather than lack of acting chops.  I always like to give the actors and actresses the benefit of the doubt.  As I haven’t seen much of Lively, I’ll withhold judgment for the time being.

The computer graphics are hit and miss.  The Green Lantern suit looked weird to me when I first saw pictures of it a year ago.  It still looked weird to me when I saw it in the movie.  That whole muscle-vein pattern was just a little too much for my tastes.  Kind of like the digital team was trying to make the uniform look like the nanosuit from Crysis.

Awesome if you're wearing a nanosuit. Weird if it's just clothing.

Really, I wanted this movie to be good.  I wanted it to be amazing, in fact.  In the end, I was entertained but I couldn’t help but feel that the movie could have been a lot better.  My verdict?  It’s an okay summer movie, mildly entertaining but ultimately mediocre in the spectrum of recent, well-done superhero movies.

   

As a side note.  Consider that Nolan’s Batman reboot technically co-exists within the Green Lantern universe.  That’s a wild set of styles to mesh.  While I understand that movies can exist solely within their own universes and in this version of Green Lantern, Batman likely doesn’t even exist, I feel that DC and Warner Brothers here missed a golden opportunity to expand their superhero movie franchise.  Marvel Comics really has to be commended for their focused goal of putting out quality superhero movies, with the stated goal of putting together a massive Avengers movie effort.  That is awesome.

I feel very strongly that this version of Green Lantern lacks the creative depth and focused goal that would allow DC to make a Justice League style movie.  And not trying for that just seems to be both a critical misstep in my book as well as lazy on the studio’s part.  Anyway, that’s the last of my rant.

Oh, and Captain America, please don’t suck.

~Shortfold.

 

Unprofessional Movie Thoughts: Midnight in Paris

Catchy poster.

Greetings fellow movie-goers!  Today we’ll be discussing the latest creative effort from director Woody Allen.  Now, if you’re not terribly familiar with Woody Allen, that’s okay.  I find his movies are often a little slow, a little dry, a little… boring.  I also find that people that love Woody Allen movies also tend to be a little dry and a little boring.  Slow, maybe not so much.  Honestly, his movies tend to be fairly intellectual, to the point of being mildly neurotic.  This makes watching a movie made by him a bit daunting, as it can be easy to miss jokes if you’re not ‘up’ on what he’s talking about.  I digress.

Midnight in Paris.  Good movie.  Not for everybody.  Without spoiling some of the surprise cameos in the film, the basic plot follows Owen Wilson as the movie script writing Gil.  Gil is in Paris with his fiance Inez, played by the always pretty Rachel McAdams.  There’s tension between the two, and Inez’s rich, helicopter parents have tagged along which of course adds to the discomfort that the mild-mannered Gil is feeling.

All of this might seem par for the course, but here’s where things take a left turn.  Whilst strolling around Paris at the titular midnight hour, Gil stumbles into a group of party-goers in a classy but very old-world car.  What follows is a seemless transition into a 1920′s Paris, rich with the greatest artistic and literary talent of the day.  As noted by Gil, this is what he considers the Golden Age of art and literature, and it’s fantastic seeing Wilson’s character become absolutely awe-struck by meeting his idols.

The cast of this movie is stunning and the cameos of historical figures is inspired.  Essentially, if you like or are at least knowledgeable of classic literature and art, you’ll likely have an absolute ball with this movie.  The movie is ultimately a movie of self-discovery, with Gil’s forays into the past as a means of self-examination.  The movie doesn’t really spend time analyzing the ‘time travel’ elements, and the characters, while occasionally noting the oddity of Gil’s presence, never seem to pay it much mind.  This works, as once again, the movie’s not about the aspect of time, so much as it is about the minds of the time.

Oh, I might mention this.  The pacing is… well it’s terribly Woody Allen.  That said, I feel that each scene is thorough, rather than being slow.  It’s kind of the approach that a really good cook might take towards a dish.  “It’s done when it’s done.”  If you can handle that kind of pacing, you’re in for a treat, especially if you like the thought of rubbing elbows with the likes of the Fitzgeralds, Hemingway, Picasso, and Gertrude Stein.

While levity is certainly the main tone of the movie, there are a few powerful scenes, namely given credence by the solid dialogue and acting chops of some of the supporting actors.  I highly suggest taking a friend or a date (or both) and seeing where this movie takes you.

Happy watching!

~Shortfold

 

Movie Review: Thor

Laying the hammer down, in a good way.

At this point, I figure that it’s fairly established that I’m a nerd.  I wear the title proudly, like a badge of honor or a distinguished suit.  What might not be immediately evident is that I’m also a student of history.  One day, hopefully soon, I plan on filling the vapid skulls of America’s youth with knowledge of the past in hopes of preparing them for the future.

Enter the movie Thor.  Thor, under the direction of Marvel Comics studios deviates in wild and unique ways from the Norse mythology that is its source material.

Go long!

That said, the universe of Marvel-Thor is rich in detail, interesting takes on mythology characters and creatures, and to its credit, the movie does a good job translating these elements to the big screen.  The end result is something that’s one half sci-fi, one half fantasy, and one  half summer action movie.  That’s three halves, and it somehow works.

Why does Thor work?  Two reasons.  First is director Kenneth Branagh.  He just gets the slightly over the top, bombastic style that goes with this kind of acting.  The second reason that the movie works is relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth.  Hemsworth plays the titular Thor, and moreover he owns the role and make it his own.  Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past several years, you’ll probably remember how everyone congratulated Hugh Jackman for personifying Wolverine in such a seemingly effortless manner.  Well, in that regard Hemsworth is at least Jackman’s equal and possibly one better, in that he’s not been in a movie portraying his character that was absolutely awful.  I’m looking at you, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

I digress.  There’s been a number of mixed reviews and it doesn’t appear that there’s any rhyme or reason to it.  It would make sense that comic book fans would be the most critical of Thor and non-fans would have a more difficult time delving into the realm that is Asgard and all the pseudo-mythological ramifications that introducing an entirely unfamiliar world might bring with it.  In fact, Thor seems to be equally loved or hated or “meh’d” by both fans and non-fans.

To put this review into the simplest terms, I feel (note, opinion here), that Thor makes for a great summer movie.  The narrative remains simple and focuses on character development and action in equal parts.  Sure, it’s a bit far fetched that spoiled godling Thor could suddenly have his eyes opened to the values of mutual respect and compassion in the short time he spends on Earth, but you also never feel like the movie is contrived.  Every player has a purpose and every scene is important to the story.  Furthermore, Branagh deftly does the job of weaving back story into what is ultimately an origin story movie by showing as opposed to telling.

As a final note, excellent performances by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, and Idris Elba as Heimdall should all be noted.  Kat Dennings is incredibly cute and provides comedic relief as Darcy, and Natalie Portman does a good if understated job as Jane Foster.  I also loved any time the Warriors Three got screen time.  Their dynamic was impressive, often hilarious, and is something I’d love to see more of.

In short, if the trailer looks like something you’d like, you’re probably going to like it.  If you’re just looking for a fun and entertaining summer movie, you could definitely do worse.  And, if you don’t think you’ll like it, well… that’s you’re loss. 

 

Unprofessional Movie Review: “Hanna”

Dear readers.  Go.  See.  Hanna.

Do it.  Scoot!  Go out there and treat yourself to one of the most fun movies you’ll probably see this year.

Ronan's an actress I'll be keeping an eye on. She seems to personify her character, Hanna's creed. Adapt or die. She's a very versatile actress.

Basic synopsis with as few spoilers as possible?  Little girl is trained by her dad in the art of spying and breaking people’s necks.  It’s a lot like the Bourne Identity except with Saoirse Ronan doing a fantastic job as an incredibly lethal but ultimately vulnerable little blonde engine of ass-kickery.

Musical turns by the Chemical Brothers do this movie justice, and the composition of shots and action sequences are a mix of thoughtful, visceral, and surreal.  It may be due to my recent course in folklore, but if you think about it, Hanna breaks down into a very unique, modern day twist on the Little Red Riding Hood story.  And I’m talking about some serious pre-Grimm, pre-Perrault folktales here, although those elements are visited now and again as well.

Solid acting all around, the versatile Cate Blanchett making an excellent antagonist, and some lesser known actors taking excellent turns as well.  Sure, certain things don’t exactly add up if you hold it up to the light for too long, but that’s not really the aim of the movie.  Go with it, and you’ll walk away feeling like you got your money’s worth and then some.

Now, stop reading and get to the theater!

~Shortfold

 

Movie Review: Paul

Paul is one of those movies that kind of slid under my radar.  I didn’t hear about its release until a few days before it hit theaters, so I didn’t really have a lot of time to get excited about it.

He’s not a monster, he’s just rude.

Featuring the comedic team of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Paul is a comedy about two British nerds making their way to San Diego’s Comic-Con and rounding up their tour of America by stopping off at major UFO-related sites around America.

Nerdy jokes and references abound, and the sharp writing and directing by Greg Mottola (who also helmed Superbad and Adventureland) helps to keep the jokes sharp and hilarious.  Now, the caveat with any movie review for a comedy is that not everyone has the same sense of humor.  So, take my word with a grain of salt, Paul may or may not be the movie for you, but if the trailer catches your attention, I’m pretty sure it’ll be right up your alley.

At this point I should add the side note that Paul takes a detour to criticize some of the tenets of Intelligent Design.  If you’re not familiar with the principle, you can read more about it here.  This might strike a chord with or against some people, so I figured it might be an important thing to point out, as it’s not really suggested by the trailer.

There are also a number of fantastic cameos and references that the sci-fi geeks will totally enjoy, but the writing remains sharp so that even if your pop-culture references are a bit stale, you’ll still be in on most of the laughs.  If you can keep an open mind, which ultimately is really one of the greater messages of the movie, then you should be able to enjoy Paul for what it is, a sometimes rude, often witty, and occasionally touching comedy.

~Shortfold

 

Movie Review: Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch is going to be one of those movies.  It’s the kind of movie that polarizes its viewers, casting them into the love it or hate it crowds that inevitably devolve into senseless finger-pointing and name-calling, that end up leaving the actual point of the argument, the movie, behind.  Yeah, it’s that kind of movie.

Let me just come out and say, I loved the movie.  It wasn’t perfect.  In fact, I will honestly say that certain elements of it seem broken and disjointed.  Now, I have the strong feeling that I’ve already lost the attention of certain readers, the ones that were looking for the key word “loved” or “hated” and who are subsequently dismissing the rest of this review as either tripe or a ‘score one for the good guys’.  For those of you interested in hearing me out, I continue.

The movie setting is a quasi-accurate 1950′s America that quickly peels away as we the audience delve into the dream-fantasies of an emotionally damaged young woman we only ever know as Babydoll.  I won’t spend further time hashing out key points of the story, that’s why you go to see the movie in the first place.  If you’ve seen the trailers, then you know what most people know going into the movie.  It’s a gorgeously shot and composed movie, heavy on the cg-effects and it features attractive women in skimpy outfits.  None of these should come as a surprise at this point, they’re kind of staples to the movie.

What the trailers might not entirely convey is the fact that behind the hardcore mash-up of anime, sci-fi, fantasy, and pulp themes, director Zack Snyder is actually tackling some fairly heady topics. Now, this isn’t to say that the themes in this movie are conveyed in the effective ways I’ve ever seen.  The movie “Changeling” with Angelina Jolie spends a large portion of its time in an all-women’s asylum during a similar time period in American history and the movie ultimately tackles many of the same things in a much more eloquent, sophisticated and visceral manner.  The point here is, there are some serious themes behind all the glitz, but I couldn’t help but feel that the impact was lessened by some transition issues between the main characters’ reality and their combined dream-worlds.

You do get the sense that the actresses really enjoyed their roles. Take that as you will.

Hmm, I just re-read what I just wrote and I get the sense that I’m already turning this review into a defense for the movie’s positive qualities, rather than a usable review.  Okay, I’ve stated the above and gotten it out of the way.  Here’s the basic breakdown of the movie.

It’s loud.  It’s flashy.  It tries very hard at times to be taken seriously.  But, and this is a big but, the movie relies very heavily on the viewer’s suspension of disbelief and willingness to care about the characters.  Whew, there I said it and having put it down I realize that really is what was nagging me about the movie.  Zack Snyder delivers a movie full of astounding visuals, superb action sequences, and complex story architecture.  The issue is that a lot of its success is going to rely on the audience’s willingness to “buy into” the film.  My beef with this is that an excellent movie will do this on its own merits, through the synergy of superb acting, directing, and narrative.  When a character has to narrate the intro and outro, in order to make the audience “get it” then I feel like something is lost in translation.

This is excluding using amazing voice actors like Morgan Freeman.  That man could narrate the minutes from a court case and I’d still be riveted.

So… yeah.  Sucker Punch makes for a hard review and is even harder to suggest for people to go see.  It’s the kind of movie where I can’t even say, “If you think you’ll like it then you will,” simply because it defies a lot of the more standard elements used to classify a film.  Is it an action film?  Yes.  Is it a gritty film rooted in the realities of women’s rights and the objectification they undergo by men?  Also yes.  Is it something that I can suggest that people go see? Maybe.

And here’s reason for the caveat.  A movie review by me is intended as advice, or a guideline based upon my own personal love for movies.  I can only suggest to viewers or even a specific niche of viewers go see a movie if I honestly feel like it’s a near-sure-shot that they’ll like it.  Sucker Punch isn’t the kind of movie that is easily suggestible.  I’m going to have to leave that choice to the reader.  It’s more than what I can suggest.

I liked the movie.  I think it missed its mark in some areas and is heads and shoulders above anything else out there in other regards.  It’s always a risk to use words like “visionary” when talking about a director but I’ll go ahead and say that Zack Snyder just plain gets how to shoot a movie.  In regards to composition and stand-alone visual flair, he has the pinache that makes basic shots engaging and interesting.  Taken to extreme ranges, Snyder’s direction makes movies visually astounding.

I just wish I hadn’t walked away from the movie expecting the director’s cut to tell a better story.  That’s my two cents, I hope it’s helpful.

~Shortfold

 

Move Review: Red Riding Hood

While not the only movie I’ve seen recently, I felt like this movie deserved a written review and a little discussion.  Without breaking into a deep philosophical discussion like in my Twilight post, I’ll go ahead and say that the story of Red Riding Hood does hold several similarities to that other work, likely due in large part because it is directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed Twilight.  There’s supernatural stuff and a love triangle, but unlike Twilight, Red Riding Hood avoids getting bogged down in melodrama.

Now, that’s not to say that there isn’t melodrama.  There are a few moments where the dialogue and character choices are so predictable that you might get the impression that the actors are reading your mind and following your mental cues.  Also, Hardwicke uses some static shots that just don’t quite have the professional polish that you’d want to see from a movie like this.  That gripe aside, there are many times in the movie where the imagery and composition of the shots are dreamlike and stunning and I’ll admit that there were a few moments where I wish the movie would pause so that I could take in the picturesque framing of the shot.  Definite kudos to Hardwicke for those moments.

Also, I’m a fan of Amanda Seyfried.  I mean, look at her.

Ahem.  As far as acting goes, Seyfried does a good job donning the red hood and looking alternately frightened, determined, emotional, and stoic as each scene requires.  Furthermore, the performances by the other actors are generally passable to good with standout performances by Shiloh Hernandez as Seyfried’s childhood friend/love interest and Gary Oldman.

You wish you could look this cool in giant, purple pajamas.  Purple.  Very, very purple.

Oh yeah, Gary Friggin’ Oldman graces this movie with his presence as a zealous Inquisition-style witch hunter.  While any Oldman fan has likely seen him in similar roles, it’s always a treat to see him bring life to a character and he doesn’t disappoint here. And yes, he loses the glasses before shooting starts.

Alright, so I’m losing the train of this review.  Time to bring the full brunt of my movie reviewing prowess to bear on the topic. (snicker)  Red Riding Hood has semi-predictable characters.  The movie itself however, starts veering into unpredictable territory around the middle of the second act.

In addition, there are several nods to the source material of the Red Riding Hood folk tale, which is something most movie-goers and folklorists will likely appreciate.  Is the movie perfect?  Nope.  But did I find it extremely entertaining and worthwhile?  Certainly.  Try to go into the movie with an open mind, do your best to ignore the mousse-quaffed hair of the leading males and you should find that Red Riding Hood is a fun detour to grandma’s house.

 

RED

RED is actually a mnemonic device for “Retired Extremely Dangerous”.  It’s a new movie with a bunch of actors ranging from mildly geriatric to fairly young and up-and-coming.  I guess that range is depicted best by Karl Urban (of Lord of the Rings and Star Trek fame) and Bruce “yippee-kai-yay” Willis (of Die Hard, Pulp Fiction… and a lot of other stuff fame).  It also of course sports Mary-Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Richard Dreyfuss…. heck the cast of this thing is huge and awesome.

So the movie has some actor chops, but how is it?

Well, to put it bluntly it’s the kind of movie you’re going to enjoy tremendously or you’re going to hate outright.  I guess it comes to how easily you buy into a movie’s premise and how concerned you are about maintaining a suspension of disbelief.  If you like a fast-paced and entertaining (not to mention often hilarious) movie, then you’ll definitely enjoy RED.  If you like something more akin to The Professional or Taken, then you may still enjoy the movie but you might also be put off by the sometimes over-the-top (but tasteful) action.  Really, if you watch the trailer and think you’ll like it, you’re probably right.

I will also say, this is not one of those cases where the trailer uses the best parts of the movie.  I dare say that the trailer actually does kind of a poor job representing how fun the movie is.  If you like the trailer, go see the movie.  Shortfold gives RED his seal of approval.

 

“Hereafter”

Directed by Clint Eastwood, whose directing chops are increasingly impressing me, the movie “Hereafter” almost slipped past my radar.

Starring Matt Damon in a quieter, more thoughtful role than we’ve seen him in for a few movies, this movie looks to be a bit of a tearjerker.

Now, before anyone gets up in arms, I say ‘tearjerker’ in the purest form of the term, something that reaches in and touches on the subtle nuances of the human soul, as opposed to something that shows something sad and demands a response from the audience.  It’s the difference between seeing a movie where a man is out for vengeance for the death of his family and seeing a movie where a man must cope (sometimes through vindictive violence) with the guilt and emotional outgrowth of having lost those he held most dear.  It’s the difference between an A and B movie.  “Hereafter”, if the trailers I’ve seen thus far, is leaning more towards the A than the B.

The basic plot goes that a man named George, played by Damon, has a capacity for connecting to the afterlife.  The extent of this gift seems to be shadowy glimpses of loved ones lost.  Essentially, Damon’s character has the ability to give us, the bereft, some form of closure.  The story looks to weave the story of various characters who have lost someone dear to them.  Damon in turn, must deal with the emotional turmoil of having a gift that he never asked for and being the only person those overcome with grief have left.

Maybe I have a soft spot for these movies.  Maybe I’ve always secretly rooted for Damon as an actor.  Maybe since the loss of my own father last year, I have a slightly more open opinion about these movies.   And maybe, just maybe, this will be a movie worth tearing up a little over.  Here’s to hoping.