Chris Pratt

Film Review- ‘Jurassic World’ (**1/2)

Posted on Updated on

Cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water. Mosasaurus is in the water.
Cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark’s in the water. Mosasaurus in the water.

Jurassic World  **1/2 (out of 5)

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D’Onofrio, Nick Robinson, Ty Simpkins, Irrfan Khan, Omar Sy, B.D. Wong, Jake Johnson, Lauren Lapkus, and Judy Greer

Written by: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Derek Connolly, and Colin Trevorrow (screenplay); Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (story); based on characters originally created by Michael Crichton

Directed by: Colin Trevorrow


Grabstalgia.  Oh, that’s just a new word I made up to describe what happens when a piece of art doesn’t have a single aim, aside from grabbing and plucking those nostalgic strings of your memory.  In 1993, Jurassic Park became an instant classic; not necessarily because of a riveting, life-altering plot, but rather because of the fresh, carefully crafted grand spectacle it provided.  Until then, we knew nothing of dinosaurs in our movies, save for poorly rendered versions showing at our local museum’s theater or stop-motion beasts from yesterday’s earnest puppeteers.  Now, we’ve seen everything.  Jurassic World knows that, and plunges forward into “bigger and badder is better” territory.  After all, the next logical step (because there is a pile of cash to collect from this franchise) was to create a grander spectacle, and constantly remind us why we loved the first film.  That’s a neat strategy for a cash grab, but let’s be clear: if you’re looking to recreate that feeling of sheer awe from the original, you likely won’t find it.  If you’re looking for a grounded film, you won’t come close to a glimpse.  If you simply want to be entertained without consequence in the presence of the theater’s industrial air conditioner, Jurassic World was made for you.

The film is aptly made, appropriately sequenced and rendered, and provides likable, if not typical leads.  The problem, it appears, is that none of Jurassic World‘s characters have seen, and thus none have learned, from the original.  For all of the wanton loss of life and destruction of property we witnessed in the film’s first three installments, John Hammond’s original vision has somehow been seen to fruition.  In fact, the park has been open for some time.  Where there are myopic billionaires like Hammond, I suppose there are giant piles of cash ready to dump on problems and pay off vast numbers of people.  Speaking of myopic billionaires, a new “Hammond” has taken ownership of the park, in the name of Simon Masrani (Khan).  He’s a cool customer, and a modern CEO at that.  He’s hired a young woman to run his park, a young, rogue-ish fellow to train his raptors, has younger techs in prominent positions, and even flies his own helicopter.  What a guy!  He’s Elon Musk without the social responsibility (I imagine the role was pitched that way).

Sure, like the other films, we hear talk of ‘cautions’ and ‘safeguards’ with the park.  We hear about backup systems, genetic inhibitors, and other devices ready to quell the monstrous reincarnations known as dinosaurs at bay.  Just typing that bothers me, though, as it should the collective of theoretical ‘Jurassic’ investors.  Trying to keep nature, especially extinct nature, from being itself just doesn’t fly.  It simply begs for a righteous smattering of Murphy’s Law, the natural sibling of Mother Nature.  By creating a new breed of dino, Masrani and his team of nearsighted nitwits have gone and taunted the both of them, and thus deserve a steaming heap of karma.  Dubbed Indominus Rex (a name even the script scoffs at), this beautiful and horrific creature has more teeth, just like the investors ordered.  It also hasn’t paid nature’s dues, the tried and true steps every living creature has gone through to earn their place on our planet.  Through no fault of its’ own, the “I. Rex” is sufficiently underdeveloped, and thus cannot behave predictably.  Can you imagine what happens next?

Amidst the ensuing chaos, the young woman named Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) who runs this massive park must figure out how to contain the already deadly I. Rex and bring her two visiting, meandering nephews (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins) in from the park safely.  Luckily, she has Owen Grady at her disposal (Chris Pratt), and he trains velociraptors.  I’m quite serious.  His job, quite literally, is to form a bond with ancient killers in an attempt to; well, I can’t give it away, but you can easily figure it out.  So, the villains from the first film (raptors) are now our pals.  I hate to sound snarky, but let’s be real.  How many trainable reptiles can you name in today’s age?  What do you think the odds are of training one that went extinct and has a super tiny brain?  I suppose the plot needs this, or the finale wouldn’t come together, but come on.  This is only a simple step from the ‘laser raptors’ of Kung Fury.  At that point, what little science still remained from the genesis of Michael Crichton’s already far-fetched idea officially fades into the ether.

I find myself in a similar position to Clerks‘ resident gas station attendants/Star Wars skeptics.  Their perceptive concerns about innocent contractors caught in the crossfire may seem like a silly, irrelevant point to make about a sci-fi fantasy film, but it brings into focus the critical mass of characters and plot these films churn out.  If we hold comic films to a ‘death toll’ standard, chiding them for blase attitudes to human lives, shouldn’t we do the same for these Jurassic films?  Each subsequent sequel barely touches on the fallout of all previous entries.  Each film has bland characterizations of the individual in charge, as they create and spend, but never ask whether they should. A paraphrasing of Ian Malcolm’s line from the original has always been the right angle, but not a single person really listened to him, or reason.

That simple statement invites a litany of questions.  Who harbors responsibility for these animals and what comes of them?  For that matter, what became of the hundreds of dinosaurs from the first three films?  What has happened to Isla Sorna from The Lost World and Jurassic Park III?  How is the original visitor’s center from Jurassic Park still standing?  Does it serve a purpose to the plot other than to call attention to our strong nostalgic feelings for the original?  How can this park be sponsored by major companies, when they know full well the risk inherent in having their product connected to a possible catastrophe?  How can world governments not want to be involved in the safeguarding of this park?  How can a company like InGen still be in business?  Can someone blow the whistle there already and ‘Enron’ the bejesus out of them?  How unoriginal is it to have the archetypal “bad guy” be Vincent D’Onofrio?  Isn’t his presence enough to know he’s hiding something sinister?  By now, how are there not pteranodons and pterodactyls, last seen flying from Isla Sorna, not picking off swimmers on the Gulf Coast?

The unfortunate side effect of the glorious disease of nostalgia is the latitude we allow, thus the need for all of those questions of logic.  We hear John Williams’ Jurassic Park cues, and we forget that the film rushes head-long into a plot without catching us up to speed.  We see B.D. Wong reprising his role from the original, and we forgive his unabashedly broken moral compass.  We see set pieces from the original, and we forget to ask how these landmarks still stand.  We see a huge dino battle and ignore the convenient ease with which the mosasaurus picks off its prey.  Reading my words, you might imagine plenty of glorious movie visions, and there are; in fact, I’ll credit Jurassic World by proclaiming it as the most impressive of the monster movies in terms of sheer scale.  I simply find myself frustrated with a franchise that acts like its’ own antagonists, and continues to deliver the same “gather people up, run away from dinosaurs” story line.  Every person with power in these films is corrupt or blind, and by the time morality catches up to them, salvage is impossible.  Director Colin Trevorrow, for all his accomplishments with the brilliant indie Safety Not Guaranteed, spends so much time honoring the original in every way that he may have forgotten to make his own film.

Generally, I’m not a complete buffoon, devoid of appreciating escapist joy at the theater.  I can forgive honest films that simply mean to be aimless summer fun.  As a monster movie, the results of Jurassic World are most impressive.  I understand why it exists, and why most crowds are drawn to its’ promise of awe, but the reasons are disappointing and cynical to me, yet somehow acceptable to the masses.  Crowds might not have wanted a new Jurassic film, per se, but they sure want homages, repackagings, and familiar blockbusters.  They might not even notice what’s wrong with the narrative.  Like the film’s teenager Zach, our heads are probably too buried in our phones to bother noticing the transfer of our money into Universal’s coffers.  Jurassic World is not a bad film, but nor is it a good one.  It is not a loud, garish disaster, but neither is it an intelligent, thoughtful film.  It simply exists to remind us that we loved a movie 22 years ago.  That’s great and all, but we already paid for our movie ticket once in 1993 (if not two, three, and four times), bought a VHS copy, bought the DVD, bought the Blu-Ray, and paid again to see it in 3-D upon re-release in 2013.  I would never ask a Jurassic film to stop dreaming like a child it once was, but I do expect the story to grow up, and attempt to break a film barrier like its’ forefather.


2014 Films- Cumulative Ratings

Posted on Updated on

enemy gone girl nightcrawler

I’ve seen more films in 2014 than in any other year, and while that’s great, that also means I haven’t been able to flesh out the number of reviews I’ve wanted to.  That’s ok, though- I can still compile a list of this year’s films with a rating and a link to a review if I have done one.  This keeps the year in perspective, and at least gets my rating out there.  Make sure to listen to next week’s I Hate Critics podcast as myself, Bob, and Sean go over our top 10 lists for the year.

I also plan to see the following films before Oscar time: Inherent Vice, Rosewater, A Most Violent Year, Selma, Foxcatcher, The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, Palo Alto, The Double, The Immigrant, American Sniper, Belle, Zero Theorem, The Rover, Joe, and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby.

A reminder- I rate films on a scale of 1 star (poor) to 5 stars (excellent):

Enemy- *****

Wish I Was Here– *****

Nightcrawler- *****

Selma- *****

Gone Girl– *****

Whiplash- *****

Interstellar– *****

Chef- ****1/2

The Babadook- ****1/2

Boyhood- ****1/2

Life Itself- ****1/2

Birdman- ****1/2

Begin Again- ****1/2

Inherent Vice- ****1/2

Under the Skin– ****1/2

Captain America: The Winter Soldier– ****1/2

Guardians of the Galaxy- ****

Blue Ruin- ****

How To Train Your Dragon 2- ****

Locke- ****

The Battered Bastards of Baseball- ****

Top Five- ****

X-Men: Days of Future Past– ****

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes- ****

Muppets Most Wanted– ****

The One I Love- ****

As the Palaces Burn– ****

Big Eyes- ***1/2

Neighbors- ***1/2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2– ***1/2

St. Vincent– ***1/2

Mr. Peabody & Sherman– ***1/2

Edge of Tomorrow– ***1/2

RoboCop– ***1/2

The Hundred-Foot Journey- ***1/2

The Book of Life- ***1/2

The Equalizer- ***1/2

Snowpiercer- ***1/2

Wild- ***

Frank- ***

The Drop- ***

Lucy- ***

The Other Woman– ***

Veronica Mars- ***

Unbroken- ***

Bad Words- ***

Maleficent- ***

Fury- ***

Earth to Echo- ***

Non-Stop– ***

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit– ***

Noah– **1/2

The LEGO Movie– **1/2

Big Hero 6- **1/2

The Zero Theorem- **1/2

Godzilla- **1/2

Rio 2- **1/2

Tusk- **

Winter’s Tale- **

About Alex- **

The Monuments Men– **

Transcendence– **

The Fault In Our Stars– **

Taken 3- **

Penguins of Madagascar- **

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies- **

Divergent– **

The Giver- *1/2

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1– *1/2

Into the Woods– *1/2

This Is Where I Leave You- *1/2

Dracula Untold- *1/2

Oculus– *1/2

Exodus: Gods and Kings- *

Transformers: Age of Extinction– *

Film Review- ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ (****)

Posted on

"What a bunch of a-holes"
“What a bunch of a-holes”


“Guardians of the Galaxy”  **** (out of 5)

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Lee Pace, Karen Gillan, with Benicio Del Toro, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, and Josh Brolin

Written by: James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, based on the Marvel comic created by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning

Directed by: James Gunn


Prior to the release of this film, I sensed a small, but vocal group of fans growing discontent with Marvel’s ‘stubbornness’.  After all, fan hero Edgar Wright had walked from the “Ant-Man” project due to creative differences, seemingly because Marvel wouldn’t budge.  Remember, this is a group that hit so hard on their gamble, yet seemingly couldn’t wait to plan everything out in ‘phases’, then not allow for different versions of their ‘plan’.  Sure, they’ve been unbelievably successful, but I’ve been pining for them to have some fun.  Even the latest Captain America film, despite how well-done it is, still operates at a spy thriller-level of seriousness.  In walks Guardians of the Galaxy, a robust, strange, kind of gross, yet extremely funny space opera that’s a complete breath of fresh air for the Marvel cinematic universe.  Aside from a few problems that are really nothing more than my own brain being finicky about songs, this film does ‘comic book movie’ better than any of its’ counterparts, and will likely be remembered for generations to come.

More than one specific part of the film, the tone is spot on.  Upon the hiring of James Gunn as director, I was understandably worried- even with the bits and pieces that worked with his films Slither and Super, they certainly weren’t complete.  I did, however, detect a specific sensibility from Gunn that would work for a proposed film about a bunch of rag-tag galactic misfits.  From an opening scene where Peter Quill (Pratt) prances around an alien treasure room to Redbone’s “Come and Get Your Love” to a chase on the galaxy’s capitol planet, cast and crew alike seem to know that the world they’ve created is far too ludicrous to be taken too seriously.  As a result, Guardians sets a different set of rules, and comes off as quite self-aware, which is the right approach.  Think of it as an ‘indie blockbuster’.

Star-Lord/Quill is the focus of the story, but unknowingly he brings four other beings to him in search of the stolen alien orb.  On the galaxy’s capitol plant of Xandar, home of the “Nova Corps” (think Green Lantern Lite), Quill tries to sell this alien treasure.  Soon, he’s pursued by the green-hued Gamora (Saldana), the enormous, deadly Drax (Bautista), and the dynamic but scientifically improbable duo of Rocket (Cooper) and Groot (Diesel). After tearing through the city in a three-way bounty chase, all five are arrested and shipped off to “Knowhere”, a floating galactic space skull, which just happens to serve as a prison.  This motley crew goes from fighting each other, to gathering in a police lineup, to plotting an escape, to collaborating against a common enemy, all within 45 minutes.  What feels like a rushed partnership in lesser films actually makes sense here- these five all have specific skills that mesh well, and they’re all outcasts.

Little does Quill know that his artifact-snatching actions have attracted the attention of Thanos (Brolin), the ‘Mad Titan’.  He has both his son Ronan the Accuser (Pace) and his daughter Nebula (Gillan) scheming to acquire the power contained within this orb, and now that the five galactic misfits have it, they’re a target.  Much has been made of the Thanos character since he first appeared on-screen in The Avengers– but if I’m honest, his menacing tease isn’t fully realized here.  Brolin, while vocally capable of pulling off the role, delivers flat, antiseptic lines that don’t reflect the promise of his hype.  I’m sure he’ll eventually show off, but Thanos underwhelmed here.  The same goes for Ronan, who doesn’t appear to have much of a motivation for his aggression, nor is there much nuance to his character, other than his hatred for his boss/father Thanos.  If there is a weak spot to this film, it would be the underwhelming presence of the villains.  In fact, their lack of menace is what keeps this film from overtaking Captain America: The Winter Soldier as Marvel’s best entry.

The villains aren’t what make this memorable, however.  Let us ponder the multiple possibilities for failure with this film- a talking, irascible CGI alien raccoon, a stoic alien tree that can only utter four words, a former pro wrestler in a pivotal role, a green-skinned assassin, and a talented, but unproven lead.  In the hands of lesser talent, Guardians would be a disaster.  As it is, Gunn and crew took all of those same possible eccentricities and spun them into positives.  Pratt is a star- and he’s brilliant as Star-Lord/Quill, showcasing both his comic timing and his action chops.  Cooper and Diesel, while just voices, offer such a depth of character with the small amount of time they have.  It’s truly remarkable how Rocket and Groot are realized, both behind the mic and behind the CGI wizardry.  Saldana, playing off her existing connections to sci-fi popular culture (Star Trek, Avatar), brings depth to her character and elevates it from being a simple hired hand.  Bautista was a real revelation- who would have thought he could bring a dry, comic awareness to a character named ‘Drax the Destroyer’?  What appeared to be a weak link with his casting actually stood out for its’ brilliance.  There are new, exciting worlds loaded with strange, bold new visuals, prompting me (a critical sci-fi stickler) to fixate on the screen in wonder.

Other than the obvious comparison to another pop culture titan in Star Wars, one needn’t look much farther than another Marvel mind for a more prescient comparison.  The late “Firefly” series and subsequent film entry Serenity are good, low-budget templates for this material, but Guardians stands taller.  The ironic part is that Guardians, for all of its’ visual brilliance, actually owes its’ character chemistry in large part to Joss Whedon’s cult favorite.  What sets it apart is Gunn’s inherent odd sensibility- the need to place a gross joke in the right place, or a gnarly alien to ground it in a different universe.

Guardians of the Galaxy does care about the larger “Avengers” universe, but only by proxy.  The filmmakers have forged their own beast here, rife with the fantastical and the improbable, and it works.  Ok, not only does it work, it’s wonderful.  Despite my minor protestations (and they are minor), Guardians succeeds where others haven’t- bringing the spirit and fun of something like Star Wars back to pop culture, a task that even the latter’s creator failed to accomplish.  There are brash heroes, skilled warriors, sly sidekicks, idealistic factions, and loyal friends.  Simple?  Sure.  Pandering?  Not at all.  Guardians is the film experience the Star Wars prequels wishes it could have been- but as a function of artistry, the film isn’t the slightest bit worried about comparisons, expectations, or symmetry along the lines of a franchise.  I appreciate that rebel sensibility, and it should be commended for being so bold as to cast a lead like Pratt, for being weird, and for coming off like the middle child that wants to be noticed, but is fine to do its’ own thing. Guardians is fun enough to make me say I “felt like a kid again”, and actually mean it.


*note: the mid-credits scene would be throw-away, if not for the already obvious Star Wars/George Lucas link.  By getting the scene right, it shows just how wrong Lucas was/is, and solidifies Guardians as a new standard-bearer in sci-fi/fantasy. 

Film Review- ‘The LEGO Movie’ (**1/2)

Posted on Updated on

Emmet (Chris Pratt) tells it like it is.
A ‘unikitty’, a blind hippie/wizard, a wild biker girl, Batman, and a worker.  Yep, just how I envisioned it while making my own LEGO creations.

“The LEGO Movie”  **1/2  (out of 5)

Starring (the voice talents of): Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Morgan Freeman, Will Ferrell, Charlie Day

Written by: Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord, & Chris Miller (story); Phil Lord & Chris Miller (screenplay).  Based on the LEGO building block toy created by Ole Kirk Christiansen

Directed by: Phil Lord and Chris Miller

It is likely that at some point you have put together a LEGO set, or at least sat in a doctor’s office as a child and fiddled with “Duplo” blocks.  The innovate building toy has been around for over 60 years in various incarnations, and over time has become ingrained in our culture- so much so that the licensed lines are commonplace.  With licensing came comics, innovative and fun video games, and alas, short and full-length films.  A feature-length film is really a culmination of years of success coming to a head.  While not an entirely empty excuse to rake in more cash, “The LEGO Movie” falls short.  At best it brings forth a few guffaws, and at worst it’s pun overkill, forced emotion, and boredom.

Please, allow me to ‘build’ my case ‘brick by brick’ (see, I can do pun humor too!).  Until the first “LEGO Star Wars” video game arrived in 2004, I was blasé about the brand.  The gameplay was immensely enjoyable, and the cut scenes interspersed between levels were light and humorous.  Additional “LEGO” games were made, each seemingly more unique than the previous one.  This led to the creation of short films, beginning in the “Star Wars” universe, and they’ve been excellent- made with the right balance of pun humor and quirky fun for adults and children.  Like any good farcical comedy, the creators turned the subject on its’ head, poking fun at the material whilst revering it.  The entire LEGO media experience has been rewarding for myself and my child until now.  Everything was awesome (see the film to understand that statement).

Keeping that in mind, you’d think it would be a drop in the bag that I’d enjoy this immensely, but that’s not the case.  I can’t help but compare “The LEGO Movie” to everything else the company has put out thus far, and in comparison, it doesn’t hold up.  The story is pretty straightforward- Emmet (Pratt) is a ‘regular guy’ who literally falls into an interesting situation.  Adventurous Wyldstyle/Lucy (Banks) sees him as the ‘special’- the one meant to overthrow malicious “Lord Business” (Ferrell) and keep him from permanently gluing everything together.  Of course, that’s just the WORST for LEGO figures, as they love to build.  There’s also a blind shaman/wizard (Freeman) guiding Emmet, and somehow he teams with Batman (Arnett) and a host of other random minifigures (including Han Solo and crew?) to stop the ‘lord’ from doing his ‘business’.  See what I did there again?

None of this is silly through the eyes of a child, however.  The viewing I saw was chock full of cheering little ones.  The frenetic nature of the film may be a big draw to those kids, but it just wore me out, to the point of restlessness.  Maybe it had something to do with the ‘stop-motion’ style of animation.  Maybe it was just the hyperactivity of the plot, or the way that certain characters spoke.  Maybe I’m getting old enough that these kinds of things finally hit me, and I’ve turned the corner.  It would be easier if I could say the film was dull, that I didn’t laugh at all, or that it was an empty enterprise.

None of that is true, and one can tell the care the creators put into the film.  Consider this- most animated films of later years have done their best to make the film enjoyable for kids and adults alike, and thus its made for everyone.  That’s a benefit to everyone- the audience doesn’t have to fake it and snore through 90 minutes, and the kids actually remember it afterwards.

“The LEGO Movie” may have been aiming to please everyone, but what made LEGO media work before is missing here.  Tack on a confusing, sappy real-life scene at the end between father and son and it shifted into overkill for this reviewer.  It performed so well that we can expect a sequel.  My suggestion?  Hire those responsible for the earlier fare, and recapture the original spirit that didn’t need such clamor to work.

Film Review- ‘Her’ (*****)

Posted on

Just a normal everyday stroll along the beach with your lover/iPod.
Just your normal everyday stroll along the beach with your best friend/lover/MP3 player.

“Her”   ***** (out of 5)

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Olivia Wilde, Chris Pratt, and Scarlett Johansson (voice)

Written and Directed by: Spike Jonze


It comes as no surprise that the director of “Adaptation” and “Where The Wild Things Are” would create something wholly unique.  Remember, this is also the guy who made a movie about people entering John Malkovich’s mind through a trap door.  “Her” does indeed stand apart from the crowd- but proudly, in its’ own perfect little corner of the gym, observing other films and their bombastic, silly, cynical existences and kindly waiting for someone to ask it to dance.  I’m extremely pleased that I finally got to tango with this one- a funny, smart, topical, and supremely brave film that deserves to be called one of the best of 2013.  It poses so many interesting questions, and then leaves so many to interpretation, satisfying on both accounts.

Like other indie-themed films with relatively small budgets, “Her” has not been broadly marketed, and was only recently put in wide release.  You may not even know what it’s about.  To put it simply, “Her” is set in the near future, and artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where consumers can purchase an operating system that interacts with them just like a human.  Of course, this OS can be on the desktop, or it can come with you as a handheld device. The point is that the public can purchase this OS and adapt it to their lives.  It can collate emails, give you instant writing tips, or even talk you through a break up!

Now please consider- this doesn’t seem like a far-fetched idea, right?  After all, some of us have been talking (albeit awkwardly) to Siri for a couple of years now.  The next logical step, now or a little further down the technology road, is a broad-based operating system that you can customize to sound like a male or female, one that wants to talk to you, is programmed to mimic human emotions, and is designed to make life better.  I think it only stands to reason that a person would probably become emotionally involved with an A.I. unit.  That is what “Her” wants the audience to think about- the implications of having artificial intelligence as part of our lives, what the possibilities for relationships with these theoretical things are, and how that may change us.  Let’s not kid ourselves, as this technology is coming to us.  It’s only a matter of time in my eyes, and I’m sure that someone has a rudimentary version of this now.  Perhaps before his death Steve Jobs was working on something like this- an “iPal”, if you will.

A lesser film might take this idea and simply focus on the sinister underbelly of this plot, and perhaps bathe in the shock value of such a thing.  Jonze has made a film that shows ourselves, and what our own relationships mean to us through the eyes of one man’s (Joaquin Phoenix, in a role only he could play) interaction with his OS (voiced brilliantly by Johansson).  Theodore Twombley is a lonely man, about to become an official divorcee, and unsure of how to move on.  He’s not creepy, but fits the stereotype of what a creepy guy might be.  The OS is just right for him- something to talk to, to share experiences with, sans the constructs of society.

We see the entire range of emotions that a relationship with someone (or something) can bring about, and it’s not just sexual in nature.  It’s the innocent beginnings of a relationship, the warm feelings that kind words can bring, the exhilarating joy of giving and receiving emotional love, the euphoria of sex.  It’s also the frustration that comes from arguing, the vulnerability of dropping your guard to someone, and the complete agony of losing a relationship.  Theo goes through the ringer in this film, but so does Samantha (the name the OS gives itself), who becomes more aware of the emotions ‘she’ is having, since ‘she’ is also on an emotional journey.  This is definitely a dual-sided love affair.

“Her” shows the reality of companionship, not just saccharine, Hollywood relationship fluff, and oddly enough, it’s Theo and Samantha that show the relationship with the most respect in the film.  There exists a humanity between the two that is clearly lacking in the film’s human relationships.  The A.I. won’t harbor grudges, judge, or define what love means to the person feeling it.  However, one human female (Wilde) knows just how to hurt Theo, calling him creepy.  Another (Mara) makes light of Theo’s newfound happiness by accusing him of being lazy- “having a wife without the challenges of having a wife”.  Humans really know how to hurt each other, and while the A.I. has the capability for cruelty, it doesn’t have the ‘pretense’ or capability for judgment.

It’s exciting to think about films like this, and how they challenge us to consider new ideas.  For example, I found myself envisioning multiple scenarios for the governance of such theoretical OS units.  How could they be kept ‘in line’?  For that matter, would they be allowed to quarrel with an owner?  Would they have any freedoms?  Would they just be bound by programming?  How does an operating system interpret pleasure, and thus how would a partner provide it, both physically and emotionally?

What a fascinating subject by itself- but “Her” isn’t just an A.I. story.  Like the relationship between Theo and Samantha, the film transcends traditional thought patterns on such subjects.  We can’t say the film’s subject is ‘creepy’, or ‘weird’ or not ‘real’- not unless we first examine our own thoughts about what love, companionship, and our emotional needs really is, right?

With such interesting subject matter that’s handled with the utmost respect, grace, and honesty, “Her” is one of the more rewarding film experiences I’ve had in recent memory.  I admit to loving what Spike Jonze does, or tries to do, but this film in particular is his crowning achievement thus far, and stands on its’ on merits.  Sometimes it takes an inhuman event to truly understand a human behavior or emotion.  Many people point to acts of evil when they want to show how wonderfully capable the human race is.  “Her”, as a work of fiction, is a clear example of using a different point of view to help us better define what the human experience is, and can be.  For that (and for just being all-around enjoyable), it’s one of the best of 2013.