It's A Wonderful Life

It's been a couple of years since I've seen "It's A Wonderful Life". I saw it for the first time when we were living on Mare Island, and it's one of those movies that stirs up memories every time I watch it. This was the first time that I watched the movie and realized how amazing the performances are. Perhaps it comes from actually experiencing life, and having a little bit of adulthood under my belt, but I felt a connection to Stewart's character so much more this time. In my previous viewings, I had great admiration for the character, but it was that distant, recognizing that the character is admirable, not the knowing what he's going through kind. Many people have pointed out that "It's A Wonderful Life" wasn't intended as a Christmas film, but because it takes place in the hours leading up to Christmas, it kind of has been hijacked as a Holiday movie. Although I love to watch it this time of year, on this most recent viewing I see how great this film is, it works in so many ways, and is probably one of the best films ever made. I would for sure put it in the same category as "Casablanca", and that's saying a lot.

Blood Diamond

I hesitated seeing this movie when it first came out a few weeks ago. Edward Zwick has come so close in his last few movies, that I realized that any hopes or expectations I might have would probably be too high. "The Last Samurai" was an awesome film, until the last ten minutes. Zwick can tell a great story, and capture with rich detail his characters and their motivations. But when it comes to sending us on our way, he doesn't seem to know how to end his movies. Unfortunately I felt almost exactly the same at the end of "Blood Diamond". There was a very good performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, as a very Bogartesque bad-guy/good guy. As was true in the great Bogart films, there is a main character who is focused unwaiveringly on doing what is right. There are side characters along the way that either hinder or aide in the mission of the first character. And then there is the Bogart character, who is in it for himself, he'll be an whichever side is winning, regardless of morality. Of course Bogart always came around, and shocked everybody by actually doing what was right, even if it meant risking his own life. What Zwick doesn't realize is that is the end of the movie. We don't need Bogart to explain himself, and we don't need a political message preached from a pulpit, especially if the whole movie already was a political message. If you didn't know that racism, rape, profiteering, mutilation and murder were wrong before you saw this movie, I don't think a speech at the end of the film is going to help you. My suggestion, go see this movie, and when you think that Leo has pulled his "Bogart move" then get up, find your cell phone and keys, and quietly exit the building. Now that was a good

The Good Shepherd

Sometimes I see a film, enjoy it, but I don't really feel like writing about it. "The Good Shepherd" is one of those films. Now I've decided to muscle through this review mostly to see if I can understand myself what makes some films great, just not good enough to want to write about.

The first thing I think about is the title, and the timing of this film's release. It opened on Christmas weekend, and I just saw it on Christmas Eve. There is a good shepherd, but there weren't any good shepherds in this film. There were some shepherds who were better then others, but I must say it was kind of a lesser-of-two-evils kind of shepherding. Robert DeNiro directed this film, and he has been in his share of films that take a very pessemistic view of the human condition. Perhaps this film, being released at Christmas can remind us of how far we have come from the principles that our country was founded on. Pilgrims thought Jesus was a good shepherd. Durring World War II and then the Cold War, who were our shepherds? Who are our shepherds now?

Of course I'm making some connections that were never explored in the film. Obviously I think that no other shepherd can compare to Jesus, and therefore he should be our example. I really don't know if DeNiro had a deeper purpose in mind when he made this film. At it's most basic, it is a film about corruption, how none of us are immune, and how it's amazing that our country has survived with the fact that everyone in positions of power is corruptable. From my point of view it is a blessing from God that our county has survived. God has allowed the lesser-of-two-evils to be in power at certain times. Sometimes of course the worse-of-two-evils may be in power, and maybe even there have been some good shepherds.

The reason it's hard for me to write about I guess is that I still haven't completely formulated my opinion of the film. I am somewhat dissapointed that DeNiro didn't outright come to the conclusion that I thought he should, at the same time I'm glad he didn't, so that I can take time to think, write and talk about it. It was a good film.

Rocky Balboa

I don't really like boxing movies. The first Rocky movie is my favorite and least favorite boxing movie, both happening at the same time. The Rocky series represents the first time I saw a movie in the theater and realized that I has just seen a bad movie hoping to cash in on a brand name (whichever Rocky movie had the big Russian). I can't stand seeing people getting thier eyelids cut open so that they can go back in the ring, actually I can't stand that image period. What I do love about Rocky is Rocky, and the music, and Philadelphia. In this the newest and final film in the series, I got everything I like, without having to endure the eyelid slicing. If you don't already know the basic premise of the film, wht would I ruin it for you, and if you do why would I be repetetive? What I will say is that I enjoyed the whole film because it was about Rocky, as a man, as a fathes, a husband, a champion, growing old, but mostly dealing with life as a man. The strength of the first Rocky film was that you beleived this character was real and wanted him to succeed. Stallone recreates that chemistry in this film, and I think it is one of the best movies I've seen this year.

Apocalypto

I was going to begin this review by saying that Mel Gibson made his movie a few years ago, when he made "Braveheart". I was going to go on by saying that he poured his heart into that project, and that emotion made the movie more powerful. I decided that it would be best not to begin that way, because it might lead you to believe that "Apocalypto" is a lesser movie, without fairly explaining myself. So, I'm going to break down what I thought about "Apocalypto" and just leave "Braveheart" out of the discussion.

"Apocalypto" is great at what it tries to be. It is a simple story of a man, who loves his family, is faced with some rough situations, but is determined to triumph against all odds. What I really liked was how Mel Gibson places us in the jungle, with the tribesmen, and the story unfolds smoothly, naturally, right in front of us. We are in the jungle from the first moment, no subtitles explaining what the deal is. There are tribesmen, men who act like men, who have families, annoying relatives, barking dogs. The story doesn't seem forced or scripted, we feel as though we have joined these people in the middle of their lives, and the turning point that comes is unexpected to them and we understand that. Without giving away too much of the story, I will say that the main character finds himself alone, seperated from his family, outnumbered by enemies bent on killing him. This is where Mel Gibson as the director takes a little liberty, and intervenes on his hero's behalf. It sort of rminded me of "Signs", where the details by themselves may seem random, as a whole it is undeniably Divine intervention. Gibson uses some pretty heavy symbolism, which I must admit that I'm not completely sure on all the meaning. Good symbolism is interesting even if you don't get it though, and I like what he did here. There is also an amazingly well choreographed chase scene, which I won't talk about too much except to say that I love when you can see what is happening, know what is going to happen next, and everything is shot so well and put together so beautifully, that you actually feel satisfaction when the scene is over. The scene I just refered to does include what I'd like to talk about next, and something I know my mom has a concern for Mel Gibson over; violence. Gibson's previously mentioned film, this film, and "The Passion of the Christ" all have graphic, realistic violence. Before Gibson was a director, of course he made the Mad Max movies and the Letahl weapon movies, which all had some pretty intense "action" violence. Is Gibson attracted to violence? I can see my mom's concern. I think there's somewhere in the Bible that warns us against such behavior and people. But what about "The Passion", doesn't that in and of itself make up for a multitude of sins? I believe, thus far in his latter career, Gibson is taking on meaningful projects that do show a maturity that most likely reflects a change of heart. As far as I know, Mel has never killed anybody, or even given anyone a good beatdown. Perhaps he is not violent, and the use of violence in his most recent films is actually beneficial. Braveheart recognizes the ultimate sacrifice for one's beliefs. "The Passion" attempted to give an account of what Jesus really went through as a sacrifice for us. And now, Gibson has used violence to comment on the downfall of a civilization, and that to live in peace is good. I still think that mom's concern is valid. Perhaps Mel should direct the next Pixar movie, and let whoever directed "Happy Feet" make the next Roman war epic or whatever.

The Fountain and The Pick of Destiny

You may have noticed that I've been allowing some movies to share space in my reviews. Sometimes movies deserve a stand alone review, but more often than not, they can share.

I went to see "The Fountain" with my friend Rob. He gave it the review rating of 3 yawns, which was better than Soderbergh's "Solaris" which recieved his 4 yawn rating. We pretty much agreed that there were some amazing visuals, and the story was interesting, but once you've seen 20 seconds of a cool visual, you don't really need 25 more minutes of the same exact thing. Also, once you get a point the film is making, like that the main character is obsessed with finding a cure, we don't really need 10 more scenes to drive that point home. I had talked recently about Darren Aronofsky (the director of "The Fountain") being a anti-Hollywood director. He was rumored to be in line to direct a gritty Batman movie, but got bumped because he wasn't going to sell enough lunch boxes and action figures. Well, I'm not going to go back on my enthusiasm about his Batman project, but he should avoid stories about people who live forever, because it kind of felt like we were along for the ride. Maybe that's what he was going for, just like Ridley Scott was trying to make us all feel the fustration in "Black Hawk Down". There just are certain things you don't want to feel in a movie theater, and for me bored and fustrated are at the top of the list.

"The Pick of Destiny" starts out with Jack Black as a kid in a Chistian home playing a metal song for his family. As Edwardo would say, it was smurfing funny. This film falls into the category of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". Personally I though Jack Black was best in the film "High Fidelity", he was a side character who was well written and full of enthusiasm. Since then his roles have been funny (mostly) but usually shallow and missing great oppurtunities. I would say that this movie comes closest to breaking that trend, but not quite. Black is on a quest to write and perform his "masterpiece" yet the film never delivers. Perhaps that is part of the joke. Black and his partner are stoned so much that the believe they have made their masterpiece, but unfortunately can not remember how it went. Wouldn't it be better for the audience if they actually performed their masterpiece, yet because they were stoned didn't realize it themselves. Tenacious D. is a cool concept and a funny band, but they are no Led Zeppelin, which with Jack Black as the lead singer would be really cool and funny and great.

Harsh Times and Deja Vu and Deja Vu

Have I ever mentioned that I enjoy going to movies. Movies can be an escape and movies can make you think. Sometimes both happen at the same time. "Harsh Times" hasn't gottten much advertising, but I saw a poster for it and thought it might be alright. It is directed by David Ayer, the guy who wrote "Training Day", and it stars Christian Bale. Bale plays a former Army Ranger, living in Los Angeles, who is mixed up in gangs and drugs, and has just been accepted to work for Homeland Security. That in and of itself is a pretty interesting setup, but what makes the movie is Bales perfomance. Just like "Training Day", the antihero is what the film is about, not the inticate plot. Of course, as with "Training Day" there isn't much hope for a "happy" ending. Maybe for his next film Ayer should throw us all off by developing his character from antihero to hero, kind of like Bogart in "Key Largo". So here's my final analysis: "Key Largo", "Training Day" then "Harsh Times". The order in which I rate these films and the order in which they should be viewed.

Nate and I have been looking forward to "Deja Vu" for quite some time now. Aside from the mere fact that Denzel Washington stars and Tony Scott directs, this movie had one of the best trailers in a long, long time. Let's start with that I really enjoyed watching this film. Let's continue by addressing the films strengths next. Amazing direction and cinematography. Scott has complete control over every moment of film that we see. There is so much information in this movie, yet we see and hear every little detail so clearly. Also, the way the story unfolds, and the way concepts are explained and explored is interesting and keeps your attention. Denzel, Val Kilmer and the supporting characters don't just follow scripted paths, they discuss motivations, express emotion and deal with the complications of their circumstance. Now are you ready for my complaint? For some this may be a petty nitpick, but for me it's pretty big. There has only ever been one "time travel" movie that has been true to my Calvanist beliefs, and that was "12 Monkeys" Of course I enjoyed, and still do the "Back to the Future" trilogy, but there are so may holes in the logic of those films that it's best not even to think about. That is true as well with "Deju Vu". If you could go back in time to affect the past in order to change the future, logically you have begun a cicle that must be maintained. "Deja Vu" ignores that one point, which in a film so concerned with details and tying up loose ends, is unforgivable. "12 Monkeys" doesn't specifically say that God is in control, but it at least recognizes that we are not. "Deja Vu" discusses God's omnipotence, yet seems to conclude that we are masters of our own fate, now that's a scary thought.

Nate and I have been looking forward to "Deja Vu" for quite some time now. Aside from the mere fact that Denzel Washington stars and Tony Scott directs, this movie had one of the best trailers in a long, long time. Let's start with that I really enjoyed watching this film. Let's continue by addressing the films strengths next. Amazing direction and cinematography. Scott has complete control over every moment of film that we see. There is so much information in this movie, yet we see and hear every little detail so clearly. Also, the way the story unfolds, and the way concepts are explained and explored is interesting and keeps your attention. Denzel, Val Kilmer and the supporting characters don't just follow scripted paths, they discuss motivations, express emotion and deal with the complications of their circumstance. Now are you ready for my complaint? For some this may be a petty nitpick, but for me it's pretty big. There has only ever been one "time travel" movie that has been true to my Calvanist beliefs, and that was "12 Monkeys" Of course I enjoyed, and still do the "Back to the Future" trilogy, but there are so may holes in the logic of those films that it's best not even to think about. That is true as well with "Deju Vu". If you could go back in time to affect the past in order to change the future, logically you have begun a cicle that must be maintained. "Deja Vu" ignores that one point, which in a film so concerned with details and tying up loose ends, is unforgivable. "12 Monkeys" doesn't specifically say that God is in control, but it at least recognizes that we are not. "Deja Vu" discusses God's omnipotence, yet seems to conclude that we are masters of our own fate, now that's a scary thought.

Casino Royale

James Bond was defined for me by Pierce Brosnan's portrayal in "Goldeneye". I have seen the other actors, and although Sean Connery does a good job, the films are very dated. Although I think Brosnan was great as Bond, the films after "Goldeneye" were not very good at all. Jess and I just watched "The World Is Not Enough" and "Die Another Day", both of which had some good moments, but otherwise were a dissapointment. I believe that the director of the film is probably just as important as the the man playing Bond.

That brings me to "Casino Royale", the new Bond film with a new Bond (Daniel Craig) and a veteran Bond director (Martin Campbell). Campbell directed "Goldeneye", and in "Casino Royale", he fills in the character aspect that was lacking in the first film. This isn't a James Bond adventure, this is about James Bond. The James Bond we all have seen before is shallow, and consistently so. This new film shows us what drove Bond to adapt that defense mechanism. I still think "Goldeneye" is the best Bond film, but this is a good second, perhaps leaving no need for any more.

Luther

As you know, rarely do I review something I see on video, but "Luther" gives good reason for an exception. Jess and I watched this film on Halloween night, or Reformation Day night, depending on who your dad is... I had heard good things about this 2003 version, but for whatever reason, I had not yet seen it. The film is directed by Eric Till, who has mostly directed television (like Fraggle Rock) and it stars Joseph Fiennes, probably best known for "Shakespeare In Love". I know that I have talked to some brothers about my special ability to spot bad movies, cheesy movies, and poorly produced Christian movies from a mile away. "End of the Spear" falls into the latter category unfortunately, and I would have assumed that "Luther" could have as well, but happily I was wrong. "Luther" isn't a glitzy, Hollywoodized account of Luther's life, rather the filming techniques, the casting, the locations and the story all work together to convey a gripping account of Luther's actions and motivations. In retrospect, my favorite part of the movie was the posting of the 95 theses. After seeing, and struggling with differnces he had with the Catholic Church, Luther writes down his concerns, walks over to the church door, quickly nails up the paper (with all the other postings) and walks away. The point of the scene is that he is genuinely distraught, and feels it important to publicly express his concern. Of course Martin Luther believed what he wrote, and when faced with a choice of sticking with his convictions, or retracting his statements, he had to do what is right. He was not a revolutionary because he wanted to change the world, he was one man who stuck to God's Word and just would not back down. I think the film did an excellent job of portraying this, God's working through a man who wasn't self-confident, and recognized his many weaknesses. In a world that lifts up the popular, the strong, and the vain, isn't it nice to know that God doesn't comply to our standards.

Marie Antoinette

Previews can get me into the theater for films I probably wouldn't have even known existed. The first trailer for this movie gave me the following information: Kirsten Dunst, Sofia Coppola, punk rock and 1770s France... what a combination. Coppola made "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation", two very different films, and now with "Marie Antionette" she has made something else completely different. The film doesn't have a very good story, more or less it just follows Marie. She leaves Austria to marry the French crown prince, and her life as she deals with adjusting to foriegn customs in the spotlight. I like that in a film entitled "Marie Antionette", Marie Antionette was the focus, the center of the whole film. Other characters came and went, events unfolded, but we were watching Marie. I also liked the richness of the film. Lush landscapes, vibrant colors, deep and layered interior shots. Sofia has her father's eye for detail. I don't believe that she has found a great story to tell, or a cause to stand up for, but she gives us something unique and interesting.

I read that Darren Aronofsky was at one point lined up to direct the next Batman movie (which Christopher Nolan recently made "Batman Begins"). The basic premise of the movie was going to have a bankrupt Bruce Wayne and a homeless Alfred, Wayne donning a makeshift Bat-suit and becoming a brutal vigilante. Now I enjoyed "Batman Begins" and it had enough of an original perspective on Batman to entertain, but when will we stop putting up with Hollywood's cookie-cutter approach to pumping out movies? Maybe the should let Sofia Coppola direct the next Batman. Could she find beauty in Gotham? Is there more to the women in Batman's life than screaming on cue? If Alfred is Batman's father-figure, where is his mother? I know it'll never happen, but it's nice to think about the possibilities.

Flags of Our Fathers, The Prestige and The Nightmare Before Christmas (Digital 3-D)

Yesterday I got to see two movies, and today I got to see a third, so it's been a pretty good weekend.

Let's start with the weakest of the three films, "Flags of Our Fathers". I don't often agree with Clint Eastwood, but at least he makes me think, and he doesn't beat me over the head with his opinions, he presents a moral dilemma, and then deals with it reasonably. "Flags of Our Fathers" deals with the concept of doing what is right for your country at the cost of your own personal principles. Three men who fought at the battle for Iwo Jima, and were part of the famous flag raising, must deal with what they know is true, and what is best for their country. As far as the substance of the film goes, I enjoyed the way that Eastwood presented the issue, and allowed his characters to struggle and come to realistic conclusions. Unfortunately the film itself was too bouncy. Without good explanation we start in modern times, bounce back to Iwo Jima, then to the States for war bond drive, and back and forth throughout the film. Nate and I were talking and he commented on the camera techniques during the battle scenes. They were very Private Ryanesque without purpose, almost like if you shoot a beach invasion scene you must do it like Spielberg, which doesn't make any sense. Anyways, I was also kind of hoping that they would play Cash's Ira Hayes somewhere in the film, even if only during the end credits, it's such a great song that it stands alone, almost making a film representation unnecessary.

I finally get to answer the question of "The Illusionist" versus "The Prestige". Read the following review and tell me if it was even close... Also, I must warn you, it's almost impossible to talk about "The Prestige" without ruining some of the fun of seeing it for the first time, so please read no further until you've seen the movie, which you should... Christopher Nolan, who directed one of my favorite movies "Memento", has done it again, in a different way. He sets up the entire film with a line of dialogue by Michael Cain, explaining how a magician sets up his audience with a series of three acts, concluding with "the prestige" where we see something like we've never seen before. Nolan sets himself up big time with a line like that, how can a his movie deliver? Instead of tricking us, or surprising us at the very end, he gives us clues along the way. Makes us believe that we've figured out the mystery before we were supposed to. The "prestige" of the film experience is that after the movie is over, when everything is laid clearly before us, we realize that we have made judgements and supported characters that were all wrong. It's not a twist at the end of the film that makes it enjoyable, it's a twist in our minds, in the way we perceived the film watching experience. This film is one that you'll enjoy thinking about later, more than even watching the first time. I want to see it again, because as in "Memento", I know that there is a rich layer of clues that I missed, only because I was misdirected to the easy set of clues. Everyone can make easy clues, it's called television, in good filmmaking there is more, and this was great filmmaking.

I really enjoy "The Nightmare Before Christmas" It's what Edgar Allen Poe would have done if he worked for Disney. Of course I've seen it before on video a number of times, but it was fun to see it on the big screen, and Disney did a great job transferring the whole film into the 3-D format. I sat in the front row (sold out show, and I showed up late) so I did get a little nauseous, but it wasn't the movie's fault. I enjoy the music by Danny Elfman, I enjoy the animation technique, and I get a kick out of all the characters and the story too. The release right before Halloween is right, this is a Halloween movie, not a Christmas move. If I personally had to rate Holidays, here's how I'd approach it. My Birthday (because it's about me and German Chocolate cake), Halloween (because it's about the candy), St. Patrick's Day (Corned beef and cabbage), Thanksgiving (real mashed potatoes, stuffing, cranberry sauce and turkey) and then Christmas (Christmas music, lights, Christmas movies). Of course I would say that Good Friday, Easter and Christmas are the most important Holidays to me, but as far as fun goes, my Birthday just wins hands down. I went off on that tangent merely to illustrate that Halloween can be fun, and just like we shouldn't let the Devil have all the good music, as far as I'm concerned he can't have Halloween either. Let him have Secretary Day, or Arbor Day, but not Halloween!

The Departed

I like to go to movies around 10:00 on Friday night. This gives me a chance to spend time with the kids, then spend time with Jess before I spend a couple hours at a movie. This is also a good time to see movies because there are less teenagers and older people, and it's usually less crowded. It is also good because when the movie lets out, generally after midnight, the streets are quieter and this allows me to contemplate the movie I just saw. I open up this review with all this information merely to set the stage for my thoughts about the movie I saw last night "The Departed".

First of all let me tag on a little disclaimer. Most of you do not want to see this movie. Some of you would hate this movie, and some I must say wouldn't understand this movie. I myself struggle with why I like certain movies. I have already talked to some of you about this, specifically regarding "The Godfather". I think, to be honest there is a part of me that is drawn to the idea of the criminal life. It is something foreign to me, just as much fantasy as "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars". I also think that I bring my perspective into the theater. I do look for good and beauty in films that are dark and pessimistic. That being said, "The Departed" is the best film I've seen in a long time. This movie is on a level above "The Illusionist" and "Good Night and Good Luck". Scorsese extends this film beyond mere storytelling or entertainment. It is about core human behaviour and motivation. This takes place in a fallen world, so the picture painted is not pretty. There is a criminal who pretends to be a cop, and a cop who pretends to be a criminal. The irony is that in a way they are what they are pretending to be, the lines of good vs. evil are blurred. This is a very basic summary of the film, what stands the film apart are its characters. I need to apologize to Leonardo, he seems to distinguish himself further with each new role he takes on, and this is my favorite. Let's just say, back when he made "Titanic", I'm pretty sure my little sister could have beat him up, easily. Now he is a man to be taken seriously, and it would probably take Nate and my little sister to beat him up. And what about Matt Damon, he gets to use his "Good Will Hunting" accent, and he gets to go head to head with one of the greatest... And that brings me to Jack Nicholson, a little bit paranoid, a little bit crazy, a little bit of The Joker and not at all afraid to get his hands dirty (although that red stuff wasn't dirt). The DiCaprio/Damon perfomances left me thinking, the Nicholson perfomance just left me hoping I never run into him in a dark alley, or even a nice sunny open park, unless he's in a very good mood.

The Illisionist

"The Illusionist" or "The Prestige"; which magician movie is best? Recently I had the Superman vs. Batman debate with two of my co-workers. Both are big comic book fans, and instantly answered that Superman would win. "Not so fast!" said I, "Batman would win of course." They made the point that Superman has super-powers and is stronger, faster and all that stuff. I was like "Batman would win because he never goes to a fight he doesn't already have a plan to win." They thought about that for a moment, then concurred that perhaps, if he brought some Kryptonite, then he could win. "Of course he'd have Kryptonite" I exclaimed. "He'd probably have a Kryptonite suit of armor, some super-sonic Kryptonite hollow point bullets (Bat-bullets) and Louis Lane would be by his side, because she's smart enough to know the outcome of this fight, if you can even call it that." We ended up talking about compound miter saws, 18volt DeWalt hammer drills, and dovetail joints after that, because there really was no more room for debate. My point for relaying this story is merely to illustrate that when comparing two of anything, there is always one that is better and always one that isn't. "The Illusionist" which stars Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti is a very good film. I enjoyed both perfomances as well as the story and atmosphere. There was one drawback for me, and that is predictability. In certain instances, I like to be in on the framework of the film, like in an action movie. I don't need to be surprised by what happens next, onl amazed at how it happens. In a drama though, I want to be so enthralled by what is happening, that I don't see what is coming, even if in retrospect it was inevitable. Therefore, "The Illusionist" was weak in diverting my attention from what was yet to come. I knew the ending exactly abot thrity-five minutes before it happened. Now that wouldn't have been so bad if they had completely left of the traditional ending and left me to know what the ending was without insulting my movie-going intelligence. Do some people go to movies for the reassurance that comes from cookie-cutter cinema? I understand that too many films with anti heroes, trick endings and shocking twists, can leave a bad taste and an empty experience. But isn't too much of the same like too much honey or something like that? Anyways, this was the best film I've seen in the theater since "Good Night and Good Luck", and that was back in February. Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are probably some of the best actors working right now. Back to my original question, "The Illusionist" or "The Prestige"? One will be better than the other, that is true, and yet to be seen which it will be. I have a hard time thinking that Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman will impress me as much as Giamatti and Norton did, but perhaps, just perhaps, if Christopher Nolan can break away from that Hollywood pull and actually make an original and interesting film, its possible that I might not have any complaints about that film. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Snakes on a Plane

Snakes on a Plane is a movie. I saw the movie Snakes on a Plane. Samuel L. Jackson is an actor. Samuel L. Jackson is in Snakes on a Plane. Snakes on a Plane is my favorite movie about snakes on a plane. This is an example of the screenwriting style for Snakes on a Plane. I predict that when Oscar season rolls around, Snakes on a Plane will come out on DVD. The End.

Superman, Pirates, Lady in the Water, Miami Vice, Talladegan Nights...

My computer is down, but my movie ticket still works. It's amazing what one movie ticket for "Matrix Revolutions" will get you when you complain enough. I think this is all the movies I've seen since Tokyo Drift, and most of them have been better that that movie. Superman was good Summer fun with great Superman music and a couple sweet scenes (the airplane). Pirates was also good Summer fun, but seemed unable to decide between realistic, Nate and Hayes piracy or Disneyfied plastic-skull pirates. Lady in the Water was as good as I expected, but didn't blow me away as I had hoped. Miami Vice wasn't as good as its awesome trailer, but it was ten times better than anything else in its category. Talledegan Nights had its moments, and it had its anti-moments. I'll talk to you all later, give me a call and tell me what you all think, or if you've seen something good.

3Fast3Furious: Tokyo Drift

Vin Deisel brings a smile to my face. Is that not manly to admit? I really liked the first Fast and the Furious movie. It showed me something origninal in the underground racing sub-culture. It had energy, it had style, and it had manliness with Vin. Of course it also had Paul "bro" Walker. Seriously, does he get payed based on the number of times he says "bro" in a movie. He says "bro" more times in his average movie trailer than I have said in my entire lifetime. It's not his fault I guess, most likely he was brought up in a Southern California beach bum home and his parents both said "bro" his older siblings probably called him "bro" and surely he had a little Cocker Spaniel named "Bro". Anyways, Paul Walker wasn't in this, the third installment, so really the "bro" factor doesn't come ito play in this specific review.

Tokyo Drift made a good move to show us something new, focusing on a different style of racing and a whole different country, read the title of the film and you may be able to figure out exactly which country and what style of racing I refer to. Lucas Black was the star of this film, and ever since Sling Blade I haven't liked his voice. I'm sorry, nothing personal but it just is distracting. As you probably can guess this film is not about the dialouge, so his speaking was limited and therefore we didn't have too much of a problem. The racing/drivng was fun, energetic and even exciting, the story was alright and the music was bearable, well maybe I actually liked some of the music. All in all, if you want to see a movie for fun and a bit of escapism, this is the one. Unless of couse you do race illeagally, and have a buttload of money to buy, fix-up and detail, then totally destroy Japanese racing cars. If that is you, then this movie is more like a documentary, and you should go see An Inconvenient Truth for some escapism. I'm out of here "bro"!

Nacho Libre

The anticipation is over, and I was not dissapointed. I wasn't blown away either, but it's probably my own fault for anticipating so much in the first place. Will I ever learn my lesson? Superman can't possibly be as good as I hope it will be, usually the only thing that usually dosn't dissapoint are those movies that I'm sure will suck that turn out alright. Like the next movie I saw after Nacho Libre. Well, you'll have to read about that next, right now we're talking about Nacho Libre in case you forgot.

It was funny, as funny as the trailers and then some. Jack black stayed in character throughout the whole movie, an interesting cross between a Mexican priest and a pop culture influenced typical male. I loved the use of slang within the context of spiritual issues. The wrestling, the relationships, the singing, the facial expressions while riding his "chariot" and of course the baptismal scene. It was a hilarious movie, perhaps the funiest I've seen since Napolean Dynamite. of course there haven't been any funny movies since Napolean Dynamite, so whatever.

The Prarie Home Companion

I saw this movie a week ago, and didn't write about it because it wasn't really anything special. Now you're probably wondering what in the world a twenty-something, trendy, hip, cool guy like me was doing going to see The Prarie Home Companion in the first place. I do have an excuse, actually two: On Saturday mornings when I'm in line at the bank drive-through, sometimes I listen to the radio show on NPR, or maybe I'm listening to Car Talk, anyways, at some point durring the week I find myself listening to The Prarie Home Companion on the radio, and I like that guy's voice. When he's talking I am interested, whenever he stops and it moves on to music, the channel is changed. The other reason is that Robert Altman directed it, I like that Gosford Park, so I thought I would give it a try. Well, they had the guy with the voice, so I wan't dissapointed on that front, and Robert Altman directed the film in an interesting way that at least kept me awake. Other than that it pretty much was, well, not anything special.

Scent of a Woman

The last time I wrote about a film I watched at home, it was 'The Searchers" strarring John Wayne. This time I write to tell you about "Scent of a Woman" starring Al Pacino. "Scent of a Woman" is not a great film, it's alright, and overall a good smooth story, but what makes this film worth seeing is Al Pacino. Last night was my second viewing of this film, I first saw it six or seven years ago. It is truly amazing to see the range of an actor like Pacino, in just one film. This role inspires hate, love, pity and contempt all in the span of a few minutes. My favorite scene is at a resturaunt, where Pacino dances the tango with a woman who is waiting for someone else. The scene is just enjoyable to watch, then you factor in the depth of the character thus far, the foreshadowing of what is to come and the perfomance in this one scene, and it makes you appreciate it even more. Pacino may be my favorite actor, well after Bogart of course, but I think I can safely say his roles demonstrate that he is a better actor than Bogart and quite possibly one of the greatest ever.

Cars

Last night our whole family went to see Cars at our local cineplex. I think that this was the first movie that we all have been to, so it was a fun experience even before the film started. As a film, Cars was entertaining, funny and enjoyable to watch. Out of the Pixar movies so far, I think this one was the least original in the story/concept department, but visually it is the best. Now it wasn't as beautiful as Finding Nemo, or as stunning as Monster's Inc, but on a whole it is the next step in animation. The scenes at night were especially amazing, the street lamps don't just cast light, they cast light into thick air, animated thick air. Even the darkness of the sky has depth and isn't just black, but somehow is real. The film seemed long, perhaps because Aravis has a short attention span and decided to remove her shoes halfway through the film. It did drag on a little, but it was well broken up with a simple story, speedy races, and humorous dialouge and moments. I especially liked the "Mater" character. Even though he was dangerously close to being a stereotypical character, he had heart and that makes up for a lot.

I'm thinking of seeing that Prarie Home Companion, of course I'm going to see Nacho Libre and Superman, this Summer is alright for movies I guess. Still nothing that I can't wait to see though... When's that Speilberg film about Lincoln coming out? That might be alright.

X-Men 3

It wasn't the first X-Men, and it wasn't the second X-Men either, but it was still alright. I wasn't as excited to see the characters brought to life, that happened in the first film. I wasn't as blown away by the action and energy, that was the second film. This film didn't have the power in an underlying message as the first two films did. What this film had going for it were the things I didn't expect. Good-bad, bad-good, life, death, let's just say this is the movie so far this year that you probably should stay in the theater until the credits are comletely finished, if you don't, well you will be sorry. I probably should have learned my lesson by now about sequels. I really shouldn't compare them to the original, merely enjoy them on their own merits. Then again, maybe I should avoid sequels altogether and have that original good impression be the only one I have... I can't wait for Indiana Jones 4 and Die Hard 4, those are going to be sweet!

The DaVinci Code

I don't read many books anymore, but for some reason, I read Dan Brown's Davinci Code. Ron Howard has filmed that book. He didn't adapt it to film, he filmed it. This is the films strength and its weakness. It is a strength in this, details, dialouge, locations, sensations have all been captured and appear richly on the screen. It is a weakness in that the film, its scope and its actors seem limited by the covers of a book. Tom Hanks captures his character perfectly. Bewilderment, genius, fear, shock and bravery. Those are probably words that were written in the book, but lacking is a real person with deep faith or experience.

The first paragraph of my review only deals with the film as a film, which I would recommend on the merits of being a book-film transition as opposed to a book-film adaptation. I should probably take a moment to comment on the films subject matter and its perspective. I liked what Tom Hank's character had to say about Christians: We have historical, physical evidence that shows that Jesus was a good man, it is on faith that we believe that he is God's son. He is essentially saying that the truth isn't always something that can be physically proven, even if people try to cover it up, that doesn't change it being true. Unfortunately the film ends with a very clear glimpse of what the truth is (within the context of the film). I understand that this is a work of fiction and I was entertained. I just felt uncomfortable with this "historical fiction" that doesn't use truth as a backdrop, rather twists and flat out lies about truth for its plot. Kind of like watching an Oliver Stone film I guess.

Mission Impossible III

This was the Summer blockbuster that I have been looking forward to the most. Sure, I'll see the others, XMen, Superman, DaVinci, Nacho and the like, but Mission Impossible has always been sure to entertain, and always will. Can you "take it up a notch" and "tone it down a little" both at the same time? Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams say yes. This film steps up the action level so as to almost be overwhelming. By the time it was all over I acually had the thought that there had been too much action... Can this even be possible? This action is balanced pretty well with a story that deals with friendships, trust, love and commitment. Obviously Mission Impossible III isn't going to win Best Acting or Best Screenplay, but it is nice to have characters with honorable motivations and genuine emotions.

Hopefullly if you're reading this, you have already seen this film or else the following may spoil some of the fun. My one major complaint is the moment of tension that begins the film, and then becomes the opening of the finale... Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays the villian is threatening Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt and his wife. We probably all saw the trailers and knew that this was coming. What we didn't know is that the film begins this way, and after a 10-count Hunt's wife gets a bullet in the brain. My problem with this scene is this; we are watching Mission Impossible, right? Ethan Hunt should be able to find a way out of this situation. I don't know what his solution would be, that's why I'm Peter Crum and he's Ethan Hunt. My problem is the cheap, anti-climactic, vanilla amnner in which this shocking episode is dealt with. It was almost like the bad guys said "ya, we're bad guys, but not that bad, here, we'll give you another chance". When the child got shot right in front of the father in the film Crash, the audience goes through the trauma of the moment, then as the truth is revealed I had a sigh of relief, one with real joy. The differnce with the MI3 scenerio is that I just felt cheated.

Alright, I've gotten that off my chest. Other than that it was a super sweet film. J.J. Abrams brought his own look and feel to the film, like Alias with Tom Cruise and a huge budget. The special effects were awesome, especially Tom Cruise's transformation into Philip Seymour Hoffman, almost brought a tear to my eye. You must see this film on the big screen though, so hurry up and see it again.

United 93

I was sitting at home, in my basement, watching Fox News, CNN and MSNBC when the events of United 93 were unfolding. For me, the events of Semptember 11th were happening somewhere else, to other people. United 93 put me on the plane, with the passengers who must decide to do what is right, laying down thier lives for thier fellow countrymen. The film is effective in expressing the emotional progression of that morning; the grogginess of early morning travelers, fear and shock of the initial violent attack, panic and confusion, seeking answers and comfort, and finally resolve based on unlinching belief. This is an honarable effort by the filmmakers to pay tribute to the captive passengers and crew of United 93.

That is only part of the film though. The other significant focus is on the terrorists themselves. The film begins with them praying. These are not crazed delusional psychopaths, rather they are determined, scared, religious hijackers. This film is not about the character or motives though, just about that morning. In the context of the film, I do not know what happened yesterday to any on board United flight 93. It is not important, all that is important is what happens this morning. The one thought I had as I left the theater was this, it was actually a prayer, that God would give me strength to do what is right if I were ever faced with a decision like those captive passengers on United 93

The Sentinel

This movie does not deserve a review. It wasn't a bad movie, don't get me wrong, it was worse than bad, it was vanilla. I'm sorry, that's mean, I really like vanilla, especially natural vanilla Bryers ice cream, with some hot fudge sauce and some real whipped cream, and maybe some butterscotch topping as well. The Sentinel was bland, boring, dull and it wasted not only my time, but also the time of all those actors and actersses. Imagine how cool a movie could be with Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland and Kim Basinger... Well the movie you just imagined had no similarity to The Sentinel.

Lucky Number Slevin

I don't judge all movies in comparison to Pulp Fiction, but this one just begs to be in the same category. There is the Tarantinoesque dialouge, the gritty urban enviornments, more characters than you can shake a stick at, and of course a healthy dose of violence. Well maybe a little more than a healthy dose, but not like an overdose or anything that might require a shot of adreneline straight to the heart.

Lucky Number Slevin is smart. It knows that anyone who comes to see it has already seen Tarantino and all of his copycat wannabes. It makes you think that you're seeing a tired retread of the double-doublecross, twists in the twists, revenge flick. There were even times that I thought that the filmmakers had completely screwed up their own stroyline, or added unnecesary layers or details. Then came the last ten minutes of the film. I've probably already given away too much, and if you're still reading this it's you're own fault. The movie doesn't end believing it has suprised us, or let us in on some amazing mystery. Rather it shows us how all of its characters react to the devolepments and unraveling of the plot. Especialy note Ben Kinsley's reaction to the final revelation; priceless. Lucky Number Slevin knows its not original, but it knows that we don't know that it knows it's not original.

P.S. Bruce Willis is doing a good job at this point in his career of recognizing his strengths and weaknesses. I told my friend Rob that his hitman character is Pepe Le Puing his way through the movie. When you get to be Willis' age there's no reason to be running all over the place dodging bullets and breaking stuff, might as well play it smart and cool. Now when's Die Hard 4 supposed to be here?

V for Vendetta

I went to this film expecting a lot of action, with a little bit of a revolution/anti-government storyline. What I got was a lot of revolution/anti government and a little action. Now I'm sure I have already been red-flagged so I might as well say that personally I enjoyed the dialouge and exchange of ideas that the film presented, and the action was just right, kind of like Little Bear's porridge. This film reminded me somewhat of the first Matrix film (suprise) in that it used its visual presentation to emphasise and build upon the story.

Personally I think that durring this moment in history, while the government and the citizens are rushing to trade in their freedoms for the promise of security, it is great that a movie like this can be made. You'll have to ask me more about this in person, because seriously there are red flags popping up on my desktop right now. What I really should say is that it is important that Michael Moore puts out his crap, as well as other filmmakers putting out films like V for Vendetta and Curious George, and Mission Imposssible 3. In America, Hollywood can lie to us, make us think, entertain us and our children. Let us never let the terrorists win, and have us all watching "approved" films in well-lit theaters, only on odd-numbered days, starring people like Ben Affleck, please never let this happen!

Winners, Losers and Ultraviolet

Crash won, that's cool.
Brokeback Mountain lost, that's cool too. Perhaps some of the buzz will die down, everyone will watch The Searchers again (or for the first time), and maybe this year we will get some really good films worth getting excited about.
Ultraviolet was cool. It was cool in a low-budget, unique-idea, not-as-good-as-Matrix, twenty-times-better-than-Revolutions kind of way. Motorcycles are cool, especially when you have fururistic devices to make them more interesting.

Best Picture

What film deserves to win Best Picture this year?

Christians don’t want Brokeback Mountain to win because of its open homosexual message.

The Rolling Stones, The Newsboys, Sandi Patti, Michael W. Smith and Caedmon’s Call all get nominated for Best Musical Group, who deserves to win?

How many Christians are there in this country? How many homosexuals are there in this country? Where are all the great Christian films?

I could keep asking questions, and making statements, but let me just answer the ones I’ve already asked…

Brokeback Mountain deserves the Best Picture award this coming Sunday night.

The Rolling Stones. (Although it was sort of a trick question since Sandi Patti and Michael W. Smith are not “groups”)

Supposedly there a quite a few Christians in this country.

Even by high estimates there are somewhat less homosexuals than there are supposed Christians.

Has the term “great Christian film” been used before?

I’m sorry, there was another question, can I really answer a question with another question?

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada and Crash

Each of these movies deserves its own full-length review, but I think it is interesting to compare them to on another instead. I saw Three Burials on Friday night, and then Crash on Saturday night. Although the settings and styles of these films are completely different, there is a common theme: Growth. All of the main characters in both films start out at a certain point in their lives, and over the course of their respective stories they go through some pretty dramatic personal growth. I find this interesting because most movies don’t seem to have time for growth. Usually the characters are already established and exist only to further the story. In Three Burials I was surprised to see both the protagonist and antagonist grow, and definitely in directions I didn’t foresee. Then in Crash, there are nine different main characters, each of whom grows personally during the course of the film. I really enjoyed the fact that the film began with a cast of stereotypes and through some tough situations it dashed those stereotypes to pieces.
Independent films are supposed to be fresh, entertaining and thought-provoking. Instead they have merely become cheap, recycled, Hollywood, formula crap. Three Burials and Crash break away from that sad trend. Hopefully with the evolution of the media, with the immense variety and simplification of production, the cream will rise to the top.

P.S. Crash contains the biggest example of a director flat-out messing with his audience. It was my favorite part, after it was all over.

Capote

Philip Seymour Hoffman. Yes I do realize that the first sentence was just some actor's name. Philip Seymour Hoffman . There it was again, I'm not sure that it is truly a sentence, but this is a blog, so sue me. Forget the story, because it's very forgettable. This is a film created around a character and a perfomance that meets the challenge. Hoffman playes Capote, a famous aautor I guess, mostly because he says so in the movie. He hangs out with Harper Lee quite a little bit, I know her from To Kill A Mockingbird, that's cool I guess. I could tell you some of the details, like how Capote befriends a murder suspect in the case he is investigating for his next novel. Or I could tell you about the relationship that developes between Capote and the one of the other character. I could tell you that Capote is a homosexual, but you probably already knew that, or figured it out from the previews. I can't say I really enjoyed the film, and for the most part there wasn't really anything of substance to follow. But I can appreciate Hoffman's performance. This is one of those roles where the actor seems to dissappear, and you wonder what he was like between takes or after shooting each day. How can someone so completely take on a different character without becoming that person at least a little bit?

Good Night And Good Luck

I don't have much good to say about George Clooney. Of course I don't know him personally, so my opinion of him is based primarily on the political and social views he has expressed in public. This being said, I found much to my suprise that I really enjoyed this movie. The film is a quick, direct and clear glimpse into the life of Edward R. Murrow, the famous journalist. It is not a biography, rather a chapter in his life which the filmmakers obviously believe captures who Murrow was and what he stood for. David Strathairn plays Murrow (and is nominated for an Oscar) and he does a wonderful job. Strathairn delivers his dialouge with conviction, and I thought that his first speech is one of the best written and delivered of this past year. This film is about beliefs, and people who stand-up for and express them. In a time when there is much debate over news, journalism and truth, it is interesting to see a film that deals with the subject so directly. Is there such a thing as unbiased journalism? Even if you plug the "facts" into a computer and have it write the story, you still chose which information to include/exclude. What seperates Michael Moore from Fox News from CNN from Chritianity Today from, well you get the idea. George Clooney may be on the oppisite ends of the political spectrum, but I think we may agree on something.

The Searchers

“The Searchers” is not a cowboy movie, it is the cowboy movie. There have been other good cowboy movies and there have been some bad ones too. “The Searchers” captures the quality of the cowboy. The setting is Texas, a rugged, harsh and unforgiving time and place. This is the backdrop for a tragic and heartbreaking incident which sets in motion the search for a lost girl. The searchers are the heroes of the story, two cowboys, one hardened by experience, and one who is about to be. This film by John Ford is an unflinching exploration of two men’s perseverance and determination in the face of overwhelming obstacles. This movie is about love, compassion, family and right versus wrong. This isn’t a Roy Rogers white hat/black hat cowboy movie though. John Wayne, who plays one of the two heroes, shouldn’t be wearing a white hat, and he knows it. What is motivating him on this quest? Is he such a cowboy that all he automatically does what is brave, without thinking about it? I think not. Even with flaws, even in his fallen state, there is something deeper, something that drives him to do what is right. As I watched this film earlier this evening I realized that in many ways the making of this film, just its existence neutralizes all those mediocre, even bad cowboy movies. No, it probably does more than that, ten, no more than twenty years from now “The Searchers” will stand the test of time, while so many other supposed cowboy movies will fade and perhaps even pass from our memories. Truth has an uncanny knack for survival doesn’t it?

The Matador

I probably see, on average, one movie in the theater each week. I don't plan on writing a review for each film I see though. Last week I wrote about one of the movies I saw, but not the other. This afternoon I went to see "The Matador". For the first half of the movie there wasn't really anything special. It wasn't a very good first half. Then something happened, in a movie that I expected to be a quirky dark comedy. The movie grew a heart. The characters developed a relationship, a friendship. Now the average comedy might take some time to get to know it's characters, and may even allow a little sceen time for a friendship to exist, but this movie went further. It became about friendship, about two people actually being considerate of on and other. It didn't end with some punchline, or gooey happy ending. It had respect for the charcters and thier feelings and motivations. It also had respect for us as an audience. As I write this, I realize even more how that early bad first half wasn't a set-up for a joke, rather a prelude to a deeper exploration into the true purpose of the film. Now here's my little 'Focus-on-the-Family' disclaimer: The Pierce Brosnan character is a bad-guy, R-rated version of his James Bond. This means that he is not as respectful of women, life or the English language as one might hope. Also there was some bull fighting and I saw some alchohol and tobacco usage, just to let you all know.

End of the Spear

"End of the Spear " is a good movie. Let me just say that out of all the movies I've seen in the last year this is probably the only good movie that I have seen in the theater. This movie is an honest look at a group of men and women who are living fallen world, struggling with an inner conflict that they can't explain. The only answer is God's son, Jesus Christ, who a group of missionaries want to share with these lost people. The story is about the lost, the missionaries and thier relationship with each other. "Beyond the Gates of Splendor" was Jim Hanon's (director) documentary about the same events. Although I have never seen that film, the fact that this is the director's second time working with the material benefits this film. He seems comfortable with his characters and enviornment. The missionaries, although not vividly developed have individual personalities and their charisma for spreading God's grace is evident. The lost people are not just stereotypes as one might expect, but are also independent and unique. Obviously this movie was made to bring us one message (which I will not tell you here). That message comes through loud and clear. Is it possible that it comes through too loud and clear? Maybe that's like saying "Freedom!!!" was too loud and clear for Mel Gibson. This was a good movie. It had a good message. It had good cinematography and good direction.
Perhaps you are sensing a half-hearted positive review from me for this film. Why do I go to these Christian films and find myself almost apologizing for feeling that something was lacking. I feel bad criticizing a movie that is made by another Christian. You know me, I have no problem ripping apart any movie, even one I might like. I can tell you why "Gladiator" was the worst movie ever made, and why I'd rather see "Speed 2" again before I would even contemplate watching updated original Star Wars trilogy... "End of the Spear" was a good movie. How many times can I say this? But I want more than a good movie. My favorite part in the film was when the main character lands his airplane on a small sandbar. That was well done. It was set up to be a difficult task by dialouge earlier in the film. The filming of the scene itself had suspense and a good grasp of the danger of the situation. The payoff of the plane touching down and landing safely actually had a positive impact on me, sitting there in the theater. That is what film is about. You take an idea and through sight and sound express yourself to the audience. If a film works, it's because you have made the viewer believe or feel that idea. Speilberg does this so effortlessly that you might not even notice how he's doing it. Joaquin Phoenix does this in "The Village", there on the porch you don't think about him as an actor reciting lines, he is a man in love with a girl. "End of the Spear" is lacking something, it's not much but it is enough to keep you from crossing that line between seeing and believing. What exactly is it lacking? I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's there. "End of the Spear" is a good movie.

Munich

Munich is the last movie I went to see in 2005. It was also one of the best, in the top ten of the year. It was't on the level of Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report or even Indian Jones, but as with everything Speilberg it still was amazing. As with War of the Worlds earlier this year, this film dealt with a very focused subject in the midst of a rather large ordeal. The message is simple, how can a man seperate himself from evil when he is an active participant? Specifically, what makes an Israeli killing Palestinians different from a Palestinian killing Israelis? Of course my description is an oversimplification of what Speilberg adresses in this film. He conducts a very thoughtful exploration of this subject, and I believe that he is fair and uncomprimising in his presentation of both sides of this conflict. Then of course there is the Speilberg filmmaker at work here. The shots he pulls of, and the look of the film are perfect. Speilberg does everything better that everyone else. The gun battles are top notch, yet my favorite scene involes sun-glare and glasses, how did he do that?

What will be my first review in 2006? I'm still not sure, nothing is out right now that I am really excited about. Of course I'm looking forward to Lady in the Water, talk about a perfect preview... How come most previews introduce you to all the main characters, show you all the great stunts/effects, tell you the plot, give you the best dialouge and then tell you how the movie ends? Shouldn't there be an Academy Award for 'Best Trailer'? Alright, enough about that, well until next time I hope you only see good movies, because you can't get the time back that you give to a bad movie.

Broken

Have you ever seen a movie and instantly had a positive reaction, then after thinking about it for a while kind of seen it in a differnt light? I want to move on to a Munich review, but I promised this one next, so here it goes...

How are Walk the Line and Brokeback Mountain connected? Both deal with extramarital affairs, both explore how "true love" can exist even in the midst of being unfaithful. The difference of course is that Walk the Line is heterosexual and Brokeback Mountain is homosexual. Which movie do you think Christians are more offended by? Which movie do you think Christians actually are recomending to friends and family? I know the answer to both of these questions. Of course this isn't a blanket statement. Focus on the Family is so flat in thier movie reviews that they find fault in Walk the Line for exactly the reason that there is an adulterous relationship onscreen. Of course Focus on the Family also counted the uses of profanity, the acts of drug and alcohol and even the use of a shotgun for home protection as negatives against the film. If I start going off on the Focus on the Family style of movie reviews, this blog would get really long, so let's save that for some other time...

Back to Walk the Line and Brokeback Mountain. Have we given up on any hope of dealing with adultery, premarital sex, and divorce from a Christian perspective? Is all of our energy focused on the sin of homosexuality? What does this say to those around us? To answer my own questions, I think we (as a whole) have given up on many other sins. If we overlook those sins already generally accepted by society it allows our churches to get bigger and feel more comfortable in our society. Of course a good percentage of our energy is focused on condemning homosexuality. It is still one of those issues that hasn't penetrated our everyday lives. Maybe if we can stop same-sex marriage we can hold back the tide... And what does this say to those around us? We are hypocrites. So go see Walk the Line, it's a great movie! I really enjoyed the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon.