I Am Legend and Sweeney Todd

It's been a few weeks now since I have seen these movies, but they deserve reviews. My opinion of a movie changes over the course of a couple weeks, perhaps it is that I've had time to process all the information, maybe it's that the initial emotional response fades. Or the other things (life, discussions, tv, movies) have taken up space in my mind and imagination, therefore nudging any positvie response to the films out of memory. First I'll start with the most recent of the two films, "Sweeney Todd". As time has passed I think I remember the trailer for this film better than the film itself. Unfortunately the trailer contained all the best moments of the film, almost making the film unnecassary. I believe that this happens way too often. I think there should be an Academy Award for best trailer editing. Maybe it's my fault that I buy into a great trailer, hoping the film will match. Almost always the best films have trailers that are so vague, only hinting at the film itself, whereas a trailer that itself is great is a sign that someone compiled all the best stuff into one minute hoping it will be enough to get you to buy a ticket. Don't get me wrong, "Sweeney Todd" was what the trailer advertised it to be, but nothing more.

"I Am Legend" was better than the trailer let on. The reason it was better, and the reason it will stick in my memory is because of Bob Marley. Will Smith's character loves Bob Marley and his music. This may seem like a strange reason to like a movie, but for me it made Smith's character real. In the midst of life alone, fighting for survival, dealing with loss and searching for hope, Smith held on to his humanity with his passion for music. Some special effects were alright. The acting was good. The story was what it was. There was an effectively scary scene in a wherehouse. But what will lead me to have good memories of this film was Marley.

Batman Trailer

I just recently saw "I Am Legend", but before the movie started, they showed a preview that I just had to talk about. Soon I'll get to the "Legend" review, but this is what's on my mind now: The new Batman trailer is more than worth the price of admission. I hesitate to say too much, but let's just say that any aprehension I had about Heath Ledger has been washed away. Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker speaks for itself, and I believe it will stand the test of time. At the same time his performance and that movie only scratched the surface of the Batman and Joker rivalry. Burton explained the situation in relatively simple terms, Batman as tromented orphan searching for revenge, Joker as a twisted killer, hungry for fame and power. What made the film great was Nicholson's Joker, its dark comic storyline, it's tounge-in-cheek humor and of course the beautiful visual style. Christopher Nolan is digging deeper into the mind of Bruce Wayne, and hopefully his approach to Joker will be on par. If the feel of the newest trailer along with Nolan's track record can give us a glimpse into what is coming, then I truly believe that "The Dark Knight" is going to be the film to see this coming Summer.

No Country For Old Men

I'm going to begin this review by telling a story. Once upon a time there were two old men who lived in a land forgotten by time. Trailers came and went, as did raving reviews and pre-Oscar hype. These two old men had to endure the hardships of stupid, mindless movies filling the halls of the cineplex while the cream of the crop passed them over time and time again. The decision-makers in Hollywood believed that the common movie-goer was a complete idiot, and that "Saw 4" and "The Bee Movie" were the best we deserved. Through a simple twist of fate, or perhaps an accounting error, one day, much to their surprise, on one of their city's 73 screens, finally a film of consequence appeared. So without a moments hesitation these two old men sped north through the howling cold to see what the hoped would be the first really good movie in a long time. The End

Rob and I went to see "No Country For Old Men" on Wednesday night. I had seen "Fargo" with Rob way back in the day, and that is one of those movies that sticks with you for a long time. If you've seen and appreciate "Fargo", this film will be familiar and will not disappoint. If you haven't seen "Fargo", I don't really know how to gauge what your opinion will be. It's not more of the same, or a copy of "Fargo", rather it's a similar look at a similar subject. Instead of the hard cold loneliness of North Dakota, this time it's the southern wilderness of Texas and New Mexico. For those of us whose neighbors are right next door, or even within walking distance, the way of life portrayed in this film can be as foreign as living in another country. The mood of the film is established early, and although we may become attached to certain characters, and we may hope for certain outcomes, we pretty much know that the filmmakers aren't that optimistic. I'm trying to explain this film without giving too much away. This is one of those films that you almost have to see before I can talk to you about it. It's not so much about specific circumstances or plot points, rather it's about atmosphere and symbolism. Rob and I are the two old men from the story. Hollywood has a love/hate relationship with us, and even that is complicated to explain. We spend enough money at theaters for Hollywood to love us, but we spread as much negativity as we can about bad movies, so Hollywood must hate us for that. We both love good movies, from Rob's "A Christmas Story" to my "Casablanca" both of which are straight out of Hollywood. But we both hate Hollywood for lumping us all into a category full of morons. What are we going to do about it? I don't know for sure, but "No Country For Old Men" gives me a glimmer of hope.

Beowulf

Zemeckis is first and foremost a groundbreaking director. "Back to the Future", "Forrest Gump" and "Cast Away" all did something unexpected, storywise and visually. In "Beowulf" he does it again, but this time I question why he would do it the way he did. First off he chooses to retell one of the oldest stories, one that is important but not very interesting. Most of what fills in the details of the film seem contemporary, as if the writers were trying to make the story applicable to today. Maybe my perspective is just limited, but I've always seen Beowulf to be a pure and simple story of heros vs. monsters. It's not really even good against evil, or anything deeper than that. So I didn't like that the retelling got preachy and forced. The second aspect of Zemeckis' attempt to break new ground cinematically, is his use of the visual style. He used a similar animation technique in "The Polar Express" which I found to be creepy. Tom Hanks animated just didn't work for me. Here Zemeckis does take it up a notch, which was fun to watch. Angelina Jolie, a dragon, camera swoops and water effects were all great. But why couldn't we have a real Angelina Jolie, a real dragon, camera swoops and real water? A film like this is one step closer to an animated film that you can't tell apart from a live action film. But I don't want any more films that a in that blurry zone, I want to be convinced that what I'm seeing is real, not wowed by technical ability. In closing I will say one good thing and one bad. First the bad; Anthony Hopkins should never be portrayed as inebriated in an animated film ever again. The good; as in "Back to the Future" Crispin Glover proves that he is one of the most interesting actors of our time.

Lions for Lambs

Let me start out by saying that even though there were some cheap shots and an obvious slant towards the left in this movie, overall I found it to be suprisingly balanced, and at the very least respectful concerning the opposing views. Tom Cruise plays a slimy, polished Republican Senator. Meryl Streep plays a somewhat frumpy, expereinced journalist with a conscience. Robert Redford gets the best role as a thoughtful, good hearted professor. Most of this film takes place in offices, where conversations determine what is going to happen out in the World. I think that Redford's intention (as Director) was to make Cruise's character out as the villian, someone who represents everything Liberals hate. Now for me, as in Moore's "Farenheit 9-11" some of these scenes backfired. When a man who is a leader of our Country asks wether we want to win the War on Terror, as a 'yes' or 'no' question, or when he points out that "Rome is burning" and the time to act is now. I tend to agree with a character like that. I believe in absolutes and I like a leader who takes a stand. The response that Streep's character has to the 'yes' or 'no' question was right on, and I was suprised to see it in a Redford film. Streep did seem to have some over-reaction in her acting, although in this case I would tend to blame the editor, since the few moments that I can think of were actually unnecassary in the film. Finally, Redford's character although somewhat cliche (there I could use that sqiggly thingy over the "e" again), was a very interesting performance as well as some good writing. I like there were two parallel storylines going on that Redford basically was involved in, and that even though he had strong opinions in one direction (based on his characters personal experience) he was able to respect others and their decisions. On th day after September 11th, I was as cut and dry in my desire for retribution as the next guy. As time has gone on of course my thoughts on the matter have adjusted based on information avaliable. Regardless of my opinions of those in power, or specific cirumstances, I think it would be wrong to turn our backs on commitments we have made as a Country. From what I can tell, Redford would not justify surrender, but most likely his solution would fail because sometimes we need a dirty, slimy Republican making decisions that we hate before they're even made.

American Gangster and Bee Movie

Nate's been looking forward to "American Gangster" ever since he first heard about it. Personally I'm not such a big Ridley Scott fan, but whenever Nate is excited about a movie I want to see it too so that I can discuss it with him. In this case the combination of Denzel as a bad guy and Russel Crowe looked like an interesting combination, so I was looking forward to it from that perspective as well. Overall I was pleasantly suprised with the result. In a film that could have very easily been cliche (does anyone know how to put the little dash over the "e"?) Ridley Scott took a very interesting approach; he actually let us get to know the characters and understand their motivations, on a human level. One of the problems I've always had with "Scarface" is that it's a glorification of a monster. I can't identify with the "hero" because he has no morals. Now that isn't to say that Denzel's character in "American Gangster" has morals like he should, but Scott has taken the time to explain where he's coming from. In contrast to the bad gangster, there's the good cop played by Russel Crowe. This is another well devoloped character in the movie, who isn't just an obstruction for the main character, but is a real flesh and blood man himself. This film was almost perfect in its approach and examination of its subject and characters. The only weakness I found was in the way in concluded. Perhaps it was limited by the fact that it was based on a true story. Sometimes the perfect ending for a movie isn't the one that really happened. Therefore I've got to say that in a comparison of two very different movies; "American Gangster" and "Training Day", if you want to see Denzel at his very finest, in a movie that holds up all the way through, it's got to be "Training Day". Nate I'm looking forward to talking to you about this one though, I think my favorite and least favorite scene was the one where Denzel gives his 20%. It worked and it failed to work both at the same time.

"Bee Movie" was colorful, and sometimes funny. It also was a little disturbing after seeing the public service announcement that ran beforehand. Before the movie strarted they ran a spot about Colony Collapse Disorder, which in a worst case scenerio could lead to all of us dying because there's no more plants left because bees can't pollenate if there aren't any bees left. Alright, then they show us a movie which has for its main plot bees deciding not to pollenate plants and make more honey. Now it wasn't as bad as the political browbeating they threw at us in "Little Feet", but in a way it was just as disturbing. Now at the opening of this review I said that it was a colorful and sometimes funny movie. It was like candy for the eyes, and it'll look great on a HDTV. Seinfeld and the supporting cast were funny, not like "no soup for you" or "Kramer stopped short with me" funny, but funny enough. If you got kids, this is better than taking them to see "American Gangster", but it for the most part it'll just make you remember how great "Ratatouille" was.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Assassination of the Outlaw Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and The Darjeeling Limited

Let's get right to it.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" was like the first "Elizabeth", but not so much. It goes without saying that Cate Blanchett did a great job, and this movie was worth watching for her performance, the costumes and well to tell the truth my memory of this movie is already fading. If you haven't seen the first "Elizabeth" then I can recommend watching that film for sure. The combination of story, Blanchett's acting and the character created by Geoffrey Rush made that film very entertaining.

"The Assassination of the Outlaw Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is a film that I'm still contemplating. First off the cinematography was distracting and overdone. Definitely unique and to the point, but overdone nevertheless. It was hot down in Mexico in "Traffic", war was hellish on the beach in "Saving Private Ryan", but how cold and dreary can every day have been in the life of Jesse James? I only criticize so directly beacause I found it to be distracting, for the most part I liked the film. What I really liked was that the movie was about both Jesse James and Robert Ford. Just because one of them was present didn't mean that the other was overlooked. Seldom do films take the time to study two characters, and it was especially interesting since we know from the title the course they are both on. There has been much talk about Casey Affleck having a great perfomance in this movie, and I must say that he did a very good job. At the same time, to me it was pretty much typical Casey Affleck. It's one of those films where the director spend a lot of time just watching the actors in silence, their eyes, their expressions, thinking. My guess is that wether it's Casey, Ben or any other Affleck, if you film them for long enough, you'd get enough footage to make them look thoughtful or whatever state of mind you're looking for. That's not meant to take away from the film, only to say that I think the direction and editing probably is causing the buzz about Casey more than anything else.

"The Darjeeling Limited" was not what I expected it to be. Let's preface this by me stating that I loved Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums". Gene Hackman's character, Luke and Owen Wilson, Gwyneth, Bill Murray, Hey Jude, Alec Baldwin narrating, stabbings, etc. It was funny, it was sad, it was quirky, and it just worked for me. "Darjeeling" almost got there, it's almost like it was intentionally getting close but wasn't willing to go all the way. All the biggest laughs almost seemed to be the cheapest ones, like from a typical comedey. The characters were well cast, and perhaps I was expecting too much. But from the beginning when I realized that the Bill Murray cahracter wasn't even gong to make it into the movie, I was dissapointed. Then there is a death, a broken car, and many close misses with humor. The quirkiness was there, there was some cool music and some interesting cinematography including a classic Wes Andreson transition scene, but overall I was dissapointed. On a side not, the short film by Wes Anderson before the film, with Natalie Portman was actually the best part of the movie, I could have watched a lot more of that.

Michael Clayton and Stranger Than Fiction

Alright, I saw both of these movies about a week ago, but I think it's best to write about them now before I see my next movies.

"Michael Clayton" was one

Let me stop myself right there, I just saw a preview for "Be Kind Rewind" over on the Quicktime trailer site, and it looks super funny, my kind of movie alright.

Anyways, "Michael Clayton" was one of those movies that was good, and I want to write a good review about it, but as you can see it has taken a week for me to get around to writing about it. Geoerge Clooney was very good. Instead of being a invincible star, he plays Machael as a fallible, unsure, older guy. He's been through quite a bit, he's got personal issues, but he has a mission. All that extra baggage makes his character more believable and interesting. I think the ending of the movie is more satisfying because it took so much hard work to get there. The best part of the movie though was the protaganist played by Tilda Swinton. I don't think I've seen such a character before. She was manipulative, calculated and just plain nasty bad. At the same time she wasn't exactly having a walk in the park. The film captured her struggle with decisions and consequences as well. It's not easy being evil I guess.

I had heard good things about "Stranger Than Fiction", perhaps some of you had mentioned it. Sometimes I just don't make it to all the movies, and this was a chance to see something with Jess for the first time on video. I think the measure of great comedies, is how hard I laugh, and let me tell you I was laughing pretty hard at this one. Another measure of my enjoyment of a film at home is how much Jess enjoys it. Jess liked this one too, so it was a fun movie to wath together, and I would recommend it to almost anyone. I think that this is Will Ferrell's best movie. Perhaps this goes hand in hand with the fact that I'm super old now, but range that he demonstrates in this role shows his acting ability off quite well. The supporting cast, the quirky special effects, the music, they all support the humorous, original story, and make for a fun movie.

In The Valley of Elah

Tommy Lee Jones gets the story of David and Goliath right, for the most part. He uses the term "slingshot" and he suggests that David defeated Goliath because he overcame his own fear. The "slingshot" part doesn't bother me so much. How great it would be if someone in a movie would actually have gotten the point of that Sunday School lesson from so long ago.

I went into "In The Valley of Elah" expecting something quite a bit different from what I got, and that's a good thing. I like to be suprised, and I like a film that keeps me interested until the end. Tommy Lee Jones has always been great, and here he is as well. It's just sad to see a movie about such a hopeless subject, as seen through the eyes of such a hopeless individual. Basically good people, interacting with other basically good people in a completely fallen world. The basic premise of this movie was to condemn those who send innocent young men off to kill or be killed in places like Iraq. On one hand I have respect for anyone who is willing to speak out for what they believe in. Obviously the people making this movie saw a concern and want us to know about it. On the other hand, this movie is an outcry without hope. This brings me back to Tommy Lee Jones' explination of David without including God; it seems as though people in Hollywood can stand up to the wrong they percieve, but without God what hope do they have in overcoming?

The War

I'm going to post two reviews tonight, so forgive me if I'm not all-inclusive in either review. Both movies were not easy to watch, and I'm still contemplating what I think about the two.

"The War" by Ken Burns recently aired on PBS, and most likely will re-run for quite a while. I watched each consecutive episode, and I can only reccomend viewing it this way. To watch one or two episodes, or to view out of order will defeat part of the purpose. This is the best kind of anti war film that can be made. "Saving Private Ryan" is in the upper tier of anti war films, but sometimes it steps into the action genre and therefore cannot be at the top. "The War" is an unflinching look at the horrific nature of humans killing each other for their respective countries. Don't get me wrong, this was a truly reverent homage to the men and women who fought and supported the war effort durring World War II. Just as in his "Civil War" series, Ken Burns paints the struggle as being on of good vs. evil. Even if the men on the ground didn't realize the atrocities of Hitler, history has made heroes out of everyone who fought his regime. The fervent determination of the Japanese is portrayed in uncanny similarity to our current struggle with religious fanatics. At the same time, fourteen hours allows Ken Burns to address the agonizing ironies, such as Japanese internment camps here in the United States. Another subject Burns looks at was our decision to bomb hundreds of thousands of civiliians on Japan, so shortly after discoving the death camps in Germany. There are things I saw that made me feel good to be an American. There were things I heard that made me think of Pop and remind me that I'll never be able to completely appreciate or comprehend what he and so many others have done for us. I also saw things that were hard to see. Hopefully with all the questions I have and all the emotions it stirred up, the final outcome will be a balanced, thoughtful perspective, and a greater respect for men who are willing to do what is right regardless of the cost.

Eastern Promises

It's always with hesitation that I go to my next movie, after a film like "3:10 to Yuma". I didn't go see "Shoot 'Em Up" or "The Brave One" for that very reason. It's been a couple of weeks, and I kind of wanted to get back in the theater, hopefully to see something good. "Eastern Promises" was a good next movie. Like so many films it would be easy to sum up the general plot of the film in a few sentences, but to do so would almost belittle what made the film good. Now I could tell you that it is the gentle love story between a kind woman and a brutal man. Yes, that would capture the essence of the film, but it would miss all the other pieces of the puzzle. The bad guys in this film get more than equal time, they are people too. Some of our initial impressions, just like in real life are sometimes not quite right. There are relationships between people who would rather not even know each other, and sometimes those are the most interesting. I feel that it is my obligation once again to point out that when I review a rated R movie, and I mention that one of the characters is "brutal", I can't be held completely responsible for people watching this film who probably would rather not. As I see these films, including "3:10 to Yuma", I understand that the violence is there for a reason, in many cases to jolt us and contrast good against evil. At the same time, I believe that it almost always is overused or misused. Maybe another time we can discuss some examples and exaimine this closer, but right now I've got to get some sleep. Goodnight.

Rescue Dawn and 3:10 to Yuma

Chistian Bale is one of the best actors of my generation, and also one of my favorite. In the last few years he's been in "The Machinist", "Batman", "The Prestige" and "Harsh Times". Of course that's not even mentioning "Little Women", "American Psycho" or "Shaft". Can you think of another actor with that kind of range? Neither can I. Now we can add "Rescue Dawn" and "3:10 to Yuma" to his list of accomplishments. Both characters have strengths and weaknesses, but they are so different at the same time. I am fascinated to find out what his technique for preparing for roles is. He seems so effortlessly to become the character, and I don't even think about it being Christian Bale, I accept him as the person he is portraying. I mentioned to Jess how this was different from Russell Crowe's role in "3:10 to Yuma", just about the whole movie, I was like "that's so typical Russell Crowe." or "I bet that's what Russell Crowe is like in real life". Now that isn't bad, just like Pacino, DeNiro or Nicholson, sometimes the actor's persona actually contributes to the character they are playing. But I have a great deal of respect for Bale, to select such a wide range of roles and then to disappear so wonderfully into each one.

"Rescue Dawn" was an interesting look at a group of POWs at the beginning of the war in Vietnam. I wanted to see the film because Christian Bale was in it, and because I had heard that it was a beautiful film, with the jungle landscapes actually being a character in the story. Maybe because I heard that, I focused so much on the cinematography and the emphasis on the locations. It was lush, green, wet, hot, forbidding and Christian Bale did a good job too. The stroy itself wasn't anything new, and I don't think there were any deep messages. It was a good thing, as it always is, to be reminded of what men have done in service of this country. I think that even with a war going on today it is so easy to not notice since most of our lives are unaffected. There also was the basic premise of friendship, and the need for human contact, that's always a good thing too, so if you are in the mood for a trip into the jungles near Vietnam, this might be a good choice for you.

"3:10 to Yuma" isn't a great Western. Of course the greatest Western of all time (The Searchers) wasn't great because it was a Western, it was great because it rose above any genre. "3:10" does the same, in it's own way. The overall story, and the characters it contains mostly have been done before, but not quite like this. Christian Bale is a hero that represents what we would be like if we were hereos. Flawed, inadequate, unsure and afraid. Sure, we've all seen movies about reluctant heroes, but rarely do we see someone play it like it's who they really are, struggling between their heart and their will right there onscreen. Then we get the Russell Crowe character. I could compare his perfomance to another famous actor, but in doing so I migh unintentionally give awy too much about the film. Let's just say that seldom do you see a truly wicked bad guy who we actually get to know as the film progresses. What I liked was that the stroyline allowed us to see Crowe's personality and motivation, without it being an excuse for him or an attempt to convince us to like him. The film wasn't a great Western, just like "Brokeback Mountain" wasn't. This was a good movie, with well developed, brilliantly acted characters, in a Western setting.

Superbad and some non-movie related thoughts...

To write about "Superbad" or not to write about "Superbad"?... That is the question before me tonight. I recently read a review of "Halloween" by Roger Ebert in which he said that the movie wasn't for people who don't like that kind of movie, but nevertheless was great at what it did. Ebert compared John Carpenter to Hitchcock, and by that rationale I would have to compare the people behind "Superbad" to John Hughes, John Landis and Woody Allen, well maybe not Woody Allen, but you get the idea. If you didn't see (and like) "There's Something About Mary", then don't start by watching this movie or you'll probably disown me or something. Oh, and by the way, if you didn't see "There's Something About Mary", then don't watch that just to determine if "Superbad" is for you, perhaps you should watch "The Breakfast Club" first, and if you really love that movie, then watch "There's Something About Mary", and after that you might, and I stress MIGHT be ready for "Superbad" Now if you feel like I've gone to extremes to distance myself from any responsibility of you being offended by this movie, you are correct. I was uncomfortable, and not entertained on many occasians while viewing "Superbad" last night. But, I also laughed so hard, well let's just say I laughed really hard. In the previews I had seen that one of the characters had a fake I.D. that claimed that his name was "McLovin". Now that was kind of funny, but nothing prepared me for how far they would run with that name, and how it stayed consistently funny, and even got funnier as the film progressed. What on the surface seems to be a raunchy teenage comedy, turns out to be at it's heart a raunchy, thoughtful, teenage comedy. Mom, don't go see this movie. Nate, what did you think?

Alright, I'm going to break tradition here a little, but it is out of concern for everyone. I have to talk about Halo, but I don't want to take up more room over at the family blog. Over here on my blog I talk about what I am most interested in; films. I feel that Halo actually is in many ways in the same category as film for me. I mean this, the anticipation of watching a good film, in seeing how it unfolds, in enjoying the details, in analyzing the experience afterwards, all of this is true of the Halo franchise for me as well. I bought Halo and the original XBox the day they came out. That evening as the game loaded up and Master Cheif crash lands on the mysterious ringed planet, my video game life would forever be changed. There are few moments in life that give you that wonder and awe, like when your first child is born, or you see "The Matrix" for the first time. So here I am on this new planet, what do I do next. There's no track, no single course of action. The planet is mine. There is a valley and in the distance gunfire, maybe I should go that way. That first level and that first valley seemed to go on forever (in a good way), and if the aliens got too scary I could run back, no invisible walls, that experience was so much fun. Then came Halo 2, it wasn't the huge leap that Halo had been, but now after I played through the game I started to take my combat experience online, against other battle hardened gamers. Now I'm not playing against computer programs, no, now I play against unique people, ten year olds, thirty year olds, girls, Army guys, inner city kids, everyone. Try to prorgram that into a computer. Now it's not always fun, getting schooled in Rumble Pit by a thirteen year old isn't good for the ego, but there's always a next round... Now comes Halo 3, just over a month away, and I know it's going to be better than all three of the "Star Wars" prequels combined. XBox 360 graphics whith a brand new game engine. New weapons, vehicles and characters. Wide open spaces. 4 player online co-op. Co-op, where players play as a team to go through the Halo story is sweet and fun, but now we get to do it with people around the world and there'll be four of us. Now Nate just got XBox live for his 360, and we got to chat and play a little the other night. I'm looking forward to the conversations we'll get to have and the fun we'll have playing over the next few weeks, but I'm really looking forward to having Rob over, he gets one controller, I get another and down in Louisiana Nate uses another one and we all paly Halo 3 together. Who'll get the most kills? That doesn't really matter, as long as we're killing aliens together.

Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier

I didn't go see any new movies this past week, but I watched an old favorite with my kids. I enjoy watching movies I have great memories of with people I love. Sometimes I watch these films, especially old Disney movies, and find that my memories are quite a bit better than the actual movie. It sucks to grow old and critical. Every once in a while I come across a film that stands the test of time, and "Davy Crockett" is one of them. This is a movie from Pop's childhood, one that was extremely popular in its day, yet it is timeless in spirit. What struck me in viewing it this time is how much it resembles "The Last of the Mohicans". For a eight year old, the references to scalping and the sticking-to-your-principles-theme are just as powerful in the Disney frontier movie as they are to an adult in the Daniel Day Lewis film. I think that since both movies have a similar lush look, the ideas of rugged self-reliance and God, family, country (in that order) it is appropriate to discuss them in the same review. "Davy Crockett" is one of those movies that shaped who I am today, at least it shaped my perspective on life. I think with so many options for entertainment avaliable today, it's good to revisit the great films from our childhood and share it with a new generation. Sure, I'm looking forward to watching "The Last of the Mohicans" with Jude for the first time (in like eight more years), but for now it is good to share some of the innocence of childhood, and share good memories from my own.

The Bourne Ultimatum

I kind of feel like I should be reserved in how I discuss this movie. If I say too much, you might be dissapointed, if I say too little, you might not realize how good this movie is. "The Bourne Identity" came out of nowhere for me. I had liked Matt Damon in his previous roles, so I went to see the movie with little else to guide my decision. The mix of action/espionage/character developement was right on in my opinion. It took two viewings of "The Bourne Supremacy" to really appreciate Paul Greengrass' directing style (let's just say it's best not viewed from the front row of the movie theater). "Supremacy" was a good sequel because it picked up right after the first one left off, and followed the characters along a logical course. When Bourne gets the initial answer to the question; "who am I", now he must figure out how he can live with the answer. "The Bourne Ulimatum" is the next step in Bourne's developement. Is it better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all? He found out in the first installment who he was, but who made him that way? Can brainwashed cold-blooded assassins find their humanity? And what happens when they do? These are everyday questions I ponder, so it's nice to finally have a series of movies that deals so maturely with the subject. Also, at the risk of giving away some good plot stuff, the best part of this movie isn't the awesome car crash, or the brilliant Bourne traps, rather it's the silent moments between Damon and Julia Stiles. That was worth the price of admission.

The Simpsons

Durring the first half hour I laughed so hard I was almost falling out of my seat. The Itchy and Scratchy stuff, the Hillary stuff, and especially the Homer/Bart dare contest the ended in a skatedboard ride to Krusty Burger. The first half hour didn't go anywhere storywise, but it was probably up there with the best Simpsons ever. I mean the episode where Itchy and Scratchy do their take on "Reservoir Dogs" was better than this stuff. And, there have been better moments and better episodes than the first half hour of "The Simpsons" movie. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie, although funny, just seems to be more Simpsons. Sure, not all episodes can be as good as the really good ones, but shouldn't a movie that you pay to see be well worth it. When I was roommates with Rob and Justin back in the day, we watched The Simpsons all the time. Reruns every week day after work, every Sunday for the new episodes. After I got married, that kind of tapered off, and I hardly get to see it now that I have young impressionable minds around. Maybe I was hoping for an adrenaline charged super dose of The Simpsons to hold me over until the kids go off to college. What I got instead was a reminder of al those great moments from my single years, and a few laughs to get me through the weekend.

Ratatouille

"Ratatouille" is the best movie I've seen this year. I am going to make a point to not compare it to any other movies, recent or otherwise. This is because "Ratatouille" stands up all by itself as a great film. Alright, I'll come down a little, maybe it wasn't a great film. I mean I am factoring in that the animation was incredible, especially at conveying the personality of the main characters, one of whom couldn not speak to the other. I am giving this movie extra credit for something I would expect from a live action film. At the same time the "acting" portrayed in this film was far better than most real actors could ever hope to accomplish. The story was fun, the details were excitng, and the visuals were at times amazing, but were always beautiful. Please don't make me watch another... oh wait, I made a promise not to talk about those mediocre computer generated movies that I loathe, I'm trying to stay positive here. Pixar has done it again. Once again I foresee this coming Chistmas; kids in their rooms playing with brand new toys. Jess, talking on the phone to her friends about the amazing present I just gave her. Me, sitting on the couch, watching "Ratatouille".

Harry Potter 5 vs Indiana Jones

Perhaps you may think I've been unfair in the past. Maybe you think I focus too much on the negatives of the films I see, and don't just enjoy them for what they are. If this is true, then you may want to rethink reading the following review, or you might find that I am able to explain my point of view, and you'll better understand my previous and upcoming reviews.

Rob and I went to see "Harry Potter 5" on Friday night. Then on Saturday he came over for a cook-out and he stayed and watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark" with me. Ordinarilly I wouldn't ever connect these two movies, but because I watched them on consecutive nights I naturally jumped to the following conclusion: "Harry Potter 5" is no "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Of course I realize that it wasn't trying to be, but that was it's mistake. "Raiders" is fun. "Raiders" has character, witty dialouge, amazing sights, gripping action and sweet music. "Harry Potter 5" does not. I'm going to sound like a Baptist preacher here, but I think Harry Potter has lost his soul. Now stay with me here, I think the first Potter movie was a great intoduction. Then "Prisoner of Azkaban" had an exciting visual flair and let us enjoy some character devolopement as well. Other than those two, I just can't get into the Potter universe. I'll admit that the wizard duel at the end of "5" is pretty cool, but if you read the books my guess is the visual representation is going to leave a lot to be desired. My theory is that the Potter series is enjoyable reading, but when you try to keep readers happy you tend to loose people like me who just want to see a good movie.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" set a standard for entertainment. Filmmakers don't have to copy the formula of "Raiders", but they sure could learn from the master. Maybe I'm just tired of so many films expecting me to enjoy more of the same, instead of giving me something fresh and exciting. It's not the years honey, it's the mileage.

Die Hard 4 and Transformers

Well, what can I say? "Die Hard 4" was about what I expected. The best part of this movie was who I got to see it with; my wife and a bunch of my brothers. Now I'm not a perfect example of the "typical male", so I haven't devoted my life to "Die Hard" and although I believe it to be the best "pure action movie" of all time, it doesn't land anywhere near my top-ten best movies of all time. That being said, what were they thinking making a PG-13 "Die Hard" movie? It just wasn't the same. Sure the character of John McClane was there, but everything about the movie was so watered-down. I think what makes me forgive the filmmakers for this obvious attempt to market an adult film to children, is that it meant that I got to see it with more brothers than if it had been rate R. Stephen, David, Thomas, Nate and Jon all got to come with Jess and I, so it was a fun night out, and a good memory.

I debated wether or not I should set aside a whole review for "Transformers", but in the end I think it's alright for it to share space with "Die Hard 4"... "Transformers" is super awesome. Not "totally" super awesome, but super awesome nevertheless. Before going in (and Nate and I already discussed this) I knew that this was going to be a typical (notice how I've already used that word twice today) Michael Bay movie. Now that's not a bad thing, it worked alright for "Armageddon" and "The Rock". At the same time you've got to realize this before going into one of his movies; there isn't going to be a great story, you're going to have some shallow characters, and the over-the-top production/humor/acting/camera angles are are filler between the things that actually paid to see. That being said, what made this movie so sweet were the Transformers themselves. I could give examples of what scenes were the coolest and why I already want to see this movie again, but I think my word should be enough, this movie is super awesome. Two more gripes though; is the PG-13 mother/son interchange really necassary? Sure it was funny, but come on! Secondly, why if you can make so many super awesome special effects work in a big budget movie, are there special effects sprinkled throughout that make me think I'm watching a cartoon? It jolts me out of my amazement, and I know they can do better, they already did in the same movie. Maybe they should just cut out the unpolished effects, the corny teenage angst love story, the heroic army buddies and the clueless parents and just give us the coolest 30 minute Transformer movie ever.

Surf's Up

"Surf's Up" is a good movie. Ashley and I went out to see this last night, and we both enjoyed it. I guess you could say it appeals to young and old alike. A while back I took all the kids to see "Happy Feet", we might as well have just rented "An Inconvinient Truth". For what was advertised to be a funny, dancing/singing penguin movie, it turned out to be a depressing "Free Willy" style indoctrination attempt. That being said, "Surf's Up" is a breath of fresh air. It wasn't as original or amazing as Pixar would have done, but then that's asking a lot. What the filmmakers undertook, the succeeded in. They made a movie about penguins surfing, and it was cool. They created a handful of interesting characters, with good voice acting. They showed us some surfing, and with some real good attention to detail, it was obvious that there was some professional surfer assistance in the production. Finally, it was a movie about the ocean, specifically waves. Now most of this can be accomplished by merely copying scenes from "Endless Summer" and other surfing movies, but I think these guys did more than that. Riding up the waves, getting up on top of the swell, seeing the beach down on a lower level. The filmmakers really tried to capture what it feels like to be out in the water waiting for the next perfect wave. As a side note, I really liked how they used Jeff Bridges, his character reminded me of a kid-friendly version of The Dude from "The Big Lebowski".

Fantastic 4 Part 2 and My Impression Of The Summer

I went to see "Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer" (I'll refer to it as "the movie" from here on out) with my friend Rob this past Friday. The movie wans't bad. I mean it never got so bad as to call it bad, but it never got good either. Afterwards, Rob and I discussed how weak the characters and writing were. I made the point that most comic book movies touch upon some very basic human relationships and struggles, but the primary focus is on special effects and action. In "the movie" there is going to be a wedding, but the end of the World is also at hand. How do superheros fight evil and destruction while keeping their personal lives in perspective? The points that are made about family and what is "normal" were all very good and uplifting. The idea of working together and communicating were positive, good messages. But everything was all packaged up and delivered in a way that probably would irritate a twelve year old. Maybe I wasn't the target audience for this film in the first place. Perhaps the only reason I went to see it was that there wasn't anything else to go see. What I'm saying is that it wasn't the movie's fault that I didn't like it, the blame is on me. If you're under the age of twelve go see this movie. If you're over the age of twelve, stay at home and find something productive to do with your time.

Alright, so here's this weeks gripe: Movies suck so far this Summer. I'm sure I didn't emphasise "suck" enough, maybe I should have underlined it and used all caps. Even better I could have done that thing where you use a whole bunch of s's to make the letter s , then a bunch of u's and so on. I just glanced at my blog, and I haven't given out a positive review since May 5th, when I wrote about "Amazing Grace" which I saw in the Dollar theater. Now this wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the Summer looked great, but I'm kinda hestitant. Next is "Die Hard 4", but with that kid from the Mac commercials, I just don't have faith in that one. After that it's "Ratatouille", which is the glimmer of hope for this Summer's movies. I must admit I think it looks great. Following that it's "Transformers" the Transformers themselves look sweet, but if I see more of Bernie Mac or that punk kid in the first hour of the movie than Transformers themselves, I'll be pissed (by the way, if you didn't sense this from what I just said, I'd put money on seeing more of either one of those characters than all the Transformers combined in the whole movie). I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books, but I get the feeling that we already have seen the best "Harry Potter" movie. "The Bourne Ultimatum" might be good, I really liked the first on, and upon a recent second viewing of the sequel, I liked that one too. So on August third there might be a good movie, and then it goes blank for a few more months. Maybe I need to find something else to do.

Ocean's 13 and Focus on the Family

Jess and I got to go see "Ocean's 13" on Friday night. She liked it a great deal, so if you want a really positive review, talk to her. I on the other hand liked it, and I think it does the series justice, but not so much. Ocean's 11 was a breath of fresh (cool) air. The scene where Brad Pitt and George Clooney walk out of the club and the young actors are mobbed by fans and nobody notices Pitt or Clooney, that was funny. The introduction of character and the intricate heist all were great fun to watch. Then came "Ocean's 12", with more offbeat humor, Catherine Zeta Jones and is that Julia Roberts or not? On top of all that, there was the villian, a Frenchman who was up to the challenge of 12 good guys and does a techno laser dance... Personally, I think I liked the second film even more than the first. That being said, the third movie is more like the first. There is good motivation, funny lines, suprises, and other stuff like that, but ultimately I found it to be just more of the same. My favorite scenes were actually with Casey Affleck having discussions with co-workers durring his part of the mission. It was so original, and so off the wall that I was cracking up before the visual pay-off. That was some good writing. If you liked "Ocean's 11" and saw "Ocean's 12", go see "Ocean's 13". If you don't, where will you be when they bring out "Ocean's 14"?

Alright, here's the deal; I kind of don't like harping on this but I just must... Focus on the Family should be writing movie reviews. We Christians should have someplace to go to get advice and critisism of current movies from similar perspectives. I went to see "Mr. Brooks" last week, and I decided not to write a review because although I thought it was a thought provoking movie, it's one of those movies best discussed on a personal level as opposed to on a public blog. Maybe I should approach movies like "Grindhouse" the same way, but I think I write enough disclaimers to cover myself. Anyways, after I saw "Mr. Brooks" I read the review over at Plugged-In just for kicks. Suprisingly the reviewer got the gist of the movie, although in a movie about a serial-killer, he seemed awful suprised that there was some violence. Here's why I'm writing about Focus on the Family; while I was looking around for the "Mr. Brooks" review I saw that they were going to review "Hostel Part II" on Friday night. I just checked out their review, and I must admit that I was left a little dumbfounded. I'm sure some of you question the appropriateness of my movie viewing, so I understand that we all create lines for ourselves, but what in the world is Focus on the Family doing sending one of their own to a theater to watch "Hostel Part II"? In most Christian establishments going to see that movie would most likely be grounds for dismissal. I bet at Focus they frown on any other employees seeing any rated R movies, let alone one like "Hostel" Then to top it off, the reviewer goes into the gory details of the movie, at least it wasn't a video review. Seriously, not only are there references to all the stuff you shouldn't see, but as he tells us what profanity was used he leaves little to imagination. Is it just me, or doesn't it make it almost worse when you see the three little stars or a blank space, I know I dwell on the word a little longer. Also, in a movie like "Hostel" does it really matter if the characters are drinking hard cider? If your only stumbling block is alcoholism, maybe there will be enough other stuff in "Hostel Part II" to distract you. The other thing I'd like to know is how they come up with thier f-word counts. Do they have like four reviewers, each with a click counter to tabulate profanity? Does the one who gets the least clicks have to write the review? If the guy who writes the review is keeping track of all the bad stuff too, I feel really sorry for him. Alright, that's out of my system, now I guess I should come up with some positive outlet for my fustration, maybe I'll write movie reviews or something.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3

I have formulated a standard for determining which movies I really like, and it is based on DVD ownership. What is interseting is that we don't ever own any movies we buy, sure we own the actual disc, but copyright law only gives us access to the movie. Here are the three categories in my "DVD ownership" method: 1. I see a movie in the theater and before it's even over I know I want the DVD. 2. I walk out of the theater, I'm glad I saw the movie, but if I never see it again I'll be just fine. 3. I sit through the movie (walking out on a movie must be reserved for the very worst) and dread having to see commercials for the DVD in the coming months because the movie is so lame. What's funny about this system is if you really put it to the test, you don't need to buy many DVDs. Most movies aren't worth watching in the first place, and so many more don't deserve a second chance. Pay respect by only purchasing those cream of the crop DVDs, perhaps it'll send a message to filmmakers, and we won't get any more "Matrix Revolutions" or "Pirates of the Caribbean 2s"...

That's right, I said "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" in the same sentance as "Matrix Revolutions". If you don't understand how much a slap in the face that was intended to be, perhaps you should reaxamine your taste in movies. I could go into why part two wasn't good, but since this is a review of part three, let's move on... "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" falls into the second categoy of my DVD test. I'm glad I saw it. Johnny Depp was great, and had a fair amount of the movie's focus. The upside down ship was super sweet, actually the whole sequence of events leading up to it (Depp's nose to the draining of the water). There were funny moments. Awesome moments. Perfectly carried out moments (Captain Jack's dad). But that's just not enough. Please note that if I list a bunch of specific qualities about a movie, but cannot formulate a paragraph that explains how everything worked together, then it wasn't a great movie. Here's a paragraph for you:

The main problem I have with "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" is that there are too many characters, most of whom are non-essential to the convoluted plot. Low level pirates, love-scorned goddesses, and incompetent soldiers feel like filler in a movie that has a couple great perfomances and a cool concept. Sparrow and Barbossa could carry this film single-handedly, but in many scenes are reduced to background, which is unfortunate because I so much want to see more of them. The movie wasn't an hour longer than it should have been, it was 83 cast members bigger than it should have been. The only hope I have is that since enough of those extra characters got killed off in this movie, that maybe, just maybe we'll get a streamlined group of pirates in the next one.

So far only the first "Pirate" movie has made it into the DVD ownership category, which is alright since I only have a limited space in my bookcase.

12 Angry Men and Spiderman 3

It seems as though "12 Angry Men" is on PBS quite a lot, but last night is the first time I've watched it since I was either 12 or 13 years old. When it ended, all I could think is that it should be required viewing for anyone who ever sits on a jury, actually it should probably be required viewing for everyone. Now not all aspects have aged well, and it is somewhat cheesy, but it makes it point very clearly. For those who haven't seen it, the story is about a jury of 12 men who must come to a verdict in a murder case. As the jury first enters the jury room, the initial vote is 11 to 1, most for guilty. The sole dissenter makes his case, and the movie is about everything American, from freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, faith in God, responsibility and so on. One thing I noticed this time is unlike most courtroom dramas, there are only a few seconds of footage in which the defendant is visible, and there are no flashbacks to the scene of the crime. It is all about the jury. With the advent of digital cameras, with the saturation of the news media, and with a population that is so fickle, how can we expect anyone to get a fair trial? Innocent until proven guilty (emphasis on "proven"). Found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Are these things possible? I was reminded of this little line from years ago "click me", would we rather have murderers walking the streets or innocent people in jail. Would we give up our freedom to be a little safer? I say let people take their toenail clippers on airplanes. Doesn't that answer kind of say it all?

Alright, now we're on to something not so deep... "Spiderman 3". I saw it today in IMAX, IMAX makes almost anything watchable (except last years "Superman") "Spiderman 3" was way better than part 2, and I think even better than the first. Now of course there was a lot of stuff that I shouldn't have known about (like Venom) but did because of the trailers, but what's you gonna do, right? I hate movies that put characters in situations that make me feel uncomfortable, like when the girl and boy have a misunderstanding that keeps them apart. Seriously, learn how to communicate just a little better. Fortunately, in "Spiderman 3" these moments weren't as bad as the past movies, it's almost a relief that Mary Jane knows that Peter Parker is Spiderman. The campy humor wasn't as obnoxious as the last installment, I actually laghed at the jokes instead of at the movie this time. The inclusion of three bad guys worked really well. Sam Rami did a great job of balancing the meat of the story with the overshadowing danger. At any moment one of three bad guys (or all of them, or any combination of two) could be causing havoc or waiting in the shadows. The action scenes were super sweet, they just keep getting better and better at the transitions from computer to real (and visa versa). All I have to say is this, directly to Spiderman: If you have Mary Jane, I don't care what reason you might have, even if it's to save your life or end world hunger; DON'T KISS OTHER GIRLS!!!
Stupid Spiderman! One day people will realize that Batman is the one and only true superhero, and these punks like Spiderman will fade quietly from our memory.

Amazing Grace

The Dollar theater is a place of second chances. I don't remember why I didn't go see this film in its initial run, but I corrected that neglect today. "Amazing Grace" is a great film about a man who set out to abolish slavery in Great Britian. The story is connected to the song; "Amazing Grace" in that the main character's mentor was the man who wrote the song. The hero of the story is William Wilberforce, played by Ioan Gruffud. His former preacher is John Newton (played by Albert Finney) who formerly was a slave ship captain and wrote "Amazing Grace about himself. Director Michael Apted is able to clearly and powerfully follow the historic events and the lifelong struggles of a man who desires to do what is right. Should he use his voice to praise God, or change the world? There are some great scenes and dialouge that drive home the point that he should do both. The "Amazing Grace" side story worked well to emphasise the motivation of the Wilberforce character, but really the film was about him. From his arguments in Parliament, to his quiet conversations with his wife, this film is profound, uplifting and good. I'm going to sound like a Focus on the Family movie review for a second, but the only problem I had with the whole movie, is that Wilberforce made a reference to "millions of years". I don't know enough about the actual man, but being a Christian in the late 1700s, I think it is most likely that he wouldn't have made that comment. Other than that, I think that Apted and the writer Steven Knight did a great job of making a movie about a man who honored God in his words and actions.

As a sidenote, after watching that documentary on PBS about the Mormons, it certainly was a welcome change to watch something that made my soul happy.

The Invisible and The Sugarland Express

Anyone who's read my previous reviews, knows that I can't just talk about a movie as a movie, there's always something else going on in my mind as I write about my most recent viewing. Because I'm writing about two movies, seen by me on two different days, this could get a little complicated, so try to keep up...

My friend Rob and I talked about "The Invisible" the day before I went to see it. We both had similar impressions from watching the trailer, but where it intrigued me, it didn't do anything for Rob. I admitted that there was kind of that "The O.C." type look to the characters, the paranormal stuff has so been done before, and it might be kind of cheesy. But the trailer left a couple unanswered questions, and made this statement... Alright, alright, hold everything! I just watched the trailer again, to make sure I would get the quote right, and it turns out I had it all wrong. Maybe it's because I've seen the movie that I now understand the trailer, or maybe I just completely misheard the lines in the trailer, and I was expecting something different. This is all besides the point, if the trailer looked interesting to you, I think that you will find that the movie is even better than you expected. I liked that the relationship between the two main character unfolds the way it does, especially the night club scene, I really liked that part.

Oh yeah, before I go on I'v got to comment on the way I watch moves after being inundated by the media about the murders at Virginia Tech. My biggest concern is about the lives that are affected by this overwhelming act of violence. People are hurting, people are scared and some people are angry. I pray for the families and for the injured students. At the same time I can't escape the political fallout of that event. Of course there is the issue of gun control, but I am most concerned with the move to supress ideas and words. I think that our founding fathers believed that ideas and words are more powerful then guns in protecting freedom.
The reason I mention this in this review, is that "The Invisible" is a film that came from the mind of a "creative writer". The most interesting, and most powerful films come from people who are different, not just vanilla, cookie-cutter, average Americans. Before we start going after kids who scare us just in what the write, let's examine the situation a little deeper and see if there is a more direct solution to our problems.

Jess and I just watched "The Sugarland Express" on DVD. The only reason I bring up this film, is that it was on of Spielberg's first feature-length films. It satrs Goldie Hawn in a movie based on a true story about a couple who abduct a cop in an effort to get back their son. It was interesting to watch because Spielberg's style was so underdevoloped. It was his film right before "Jaws" (which I think was still kind of raw). It is a good example of Spielberg's sense of humor, and the camera angles he uses are fun. He still uses intersting camera angles, but not to this extreme and not as often as here. All in all it was an enjoyable film, and worth seeing, especially if you're a Spielberg fan.

Grindhouse

I should begin by making a drastic distinction between the two films contained within "Grindhouse". First we get Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" followed by Tarantino's "Death Proof". These are two completely different movies, and are only together because of the friendship between Rodriguez and Tarantino. I think this concept was a cool idea, and the addition of fake trailers by other directors, before and between the two films, shows that the main idea behind this concept was to have fun and to entertain us, the audience. Unfortunately, "Planet Terror" and the fake trailers failed to deliver.

Rodriguez's strength is in action, style and atmosphere. "Desperado", "Sin City" and the first two "Spy Kids" movies are great examples of this. I liked the atmosphere, style and most of the action in "Planet Terror", but the movie went over the line for me. The line I refer to is that of entertainment vs. disturbing. Maybe disturbing is too gentle a term, although it's pretty close. In "Minority Report" there is a scene where Tom Cruise chases his eyeball down a corridor. That was funny. Not all severed body-part interaction is funny, and therefore "Planet Terror" loses my approval.

The fake trailers by Rob Zombie, Eli Roth and Edgar Wright were at best near misses (Zombie) and at worst total failures (Roth). Rodriguez's fake trailer "Machete" did a good job of setting up what we were in for, and I found it to actually be more entertaining than "Planet Terror". Perhaps he should have made "Machete" as his feature length contribution, and left "Terror" as his trailer.

Now for the good stuff... Suprise, suprise, I liked the Tarantino film "Death Proof". Once again he has proven himself as a great director, someone who has depth and range. The film entertains on that basic level, with action and suspense. But it's Tarantino's observant eye and ear for the vernacular that make it special. We enjoy the way people talk and act, and want more. Just relax and enjoy the time that is spent getting to know the character, so much so that when inevitable dialouge occurs, it doesn't feel contrived, rather natural and cool. I really liked that Kurt Russel's character gained my interest and admiration, and also got exactly what I thought he deserved.

I hope that the friendship between Tarantino and Rodriguez continues. Perhaps we will get more anti-Hollywood film collaberations between these guys, but please keep the Tarantino movies coming, I like looking forward to movies.

The Lookout

I went to see "The Lookout" with a friend this past weekend. I wasn't really excited about any movies that were coming out, but I had read a brief blurb about "The Lookout". It was compared to "Memento" and "Reservior Dogs", as being a great freshman filmmaking effort. I should have just stayed home, because that would be a very difficult thing to accomplish, and it's almost better to see a movie, realize how great it was, then find out that it was the director's first movie, then and only then can you reach the conclusion for yourself that it was in the category of "Memento" or "Reservior Dogs". I could talk about the movie specifically, I could compare it to "A Simple Plan" which was a great movie about non-criminals in sleepy towns trying to do criminal stuff. I could compare it to "Memento", in that it was about memory, or the lack thereof. But why compare one movie to better movies, you might as well just watch the good ones. "The Lookout" was well done for what it was, but sometimes that isn't good enough.

TMNT and Shooter

Jude, Ashley and I went to see "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" this last Friday night. Occasianally on Saturday mornings we'll watch the cartoon, so the kids were somewhat familiar with the idea. Also, weve watched the trailer for the movie, so we've been looking froward to it for a while now. It was alright I guess. The kids enjoyed it. There was some good animation, some fun action and it was funny at times. It just didn't impress us the way that "Finding Nemo" or even "Madagascar" does. If you're going to go with computer animation, you might as well amaze us. It shouldn't be just another way to make a movie, I want to be blown away, or at least captivated by the animation. Also, there should of been more focus on the turtles as individuals and as a group. Too much attention was paid to the plot, and specific threads, I went to see the turtles, ninja turtles.

Marky Mark is finally beginning to impress me. Beginning with "The Departed" last year, and now he is good again in "Shooter". He's not as good here, but good enough to be convincing, and although the movie itself isn't great, he can't be held responsible. I went to see this movie yesterday with my friend Rob. Rob knows more about military tactics and techniques than anyone else I know. It is difficult to impress Rob with most movies, because of how Hollywoodized they are. "Shooter" impressed Rob, with its attention to detail and accuracy regarding snipers. Of course we did find things to copmplain about, but still it is by far the best representation of how snipers operate. That was the strenght and enjoyable aspect to the film. Its weakness was in story and character motivation. This is dissapointing from Antoine Fuqua, considering that he directed "Training Day", which had all the tactical detail right on plus a powerful stroy and character study. The story and the character were just good enough to not detract from the sniper aspects, which I must admit was what drew me to the film in the first place. So my conclusion would be this, if you really want to see some accurate sniper stuff, go see "Shooter", if you want to see a movie where the filmmakers were so innacurate that they had to us Spanish Navy vessles to double for our Navy, then rent "Navy Seals", now that'll get you some laughs.

300

The choreography in "300" is amazing. Usually in battle movies, as defined by "Braveheart", there is a string af individual slashes, stabs, bludgeonings, etc... all edited together to make up a battle sequence. In "300" the camera follows one or two men for as much as five straight minutes, as the work together to take on hordes of enemies. The first guy will slash one enemy, then slam the next to the ground with his sheild, as he does this, his companion will finish off the enemy who just got slammed and spin to attack the next in line. I've seen exemaples of this technique in martial arts movies, but never this smoothly or on this scale. In martial arts movies, very often I get the feeling that it is more of a dance, a rehearsed set of moves. It is still fun to watch, but knowing it has been choreogaphed takes away from the illusion of the story. The strength in the battles of "300" is that everything matches, the characters, the stylization, the sound and the choreography. Now, I could go into the weaknesses of the film, the story, the speeches, the distracting presence of Faramir, but then if you want to see the best, watch "Braveheart" again, if you want to see some sweet fight scenes, "300" is for you.

Black Snake Moan

Have you ever had one of those moments, when there is something stressfull going on in your life, and you open the Bible, and the first thing you read speaks directly to what you're dealing with? I believe that it is good to have a good knowledge of what the Bible teaches, so as to be prepared for any situation. At the same time I do believe that God can, and does reveal answers to us in His word when we need them most. This is one of the ideas that "Black Snake Moan" explores, in a very interesting way. The main concept of the film though is true love. I am a sucker for movies about true love. From "Casablanca" to "The Princess Bride" to "Forrest Gump", true love just makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside (in a good way). Of course to really capture true love, you must contrast it with false love, which isn't pretty. "Black Snake Moan" sets up it's exploration into true love with a truly dark journey into the underbelly of despair and debauchery. In "Casablanca" Rick and Ilsa have a tug-of-war with their hearts. In "The Princess Bride" there is an actual "Pit of Despair" and true love is tested by death. And Jenny in "Forrest Gump" spirals down into the depths of society, running away from true love, as though she feels she doesn't deserve it. "Black Snake Moan" isn't dealing with a new concept, but it does take a unique way of looking at it. Is it our responsibility as Christians to show those around us true love? Perhaps it isn't a good idea to chain people down, and try to force them to see it our way, but I think there a ways to spread true love without chains.

P.S. Samuel L. Jackson doesn't dissapoint, the opposite is true, as someone who thought he was great in "Pulp Fiction", here finally is a follow-up to that role.

Ghostrider and Oscar Afterthoughts

Why do I do this to myself? I guess in order to truly appreciate good movies, maybe even to appreciate mediocre movies, I must see the occasional terrible movie. Perhaps I should have known before I went, there was the trailer, which had it's moments, but when the good moments are few and far between in a trailer, consider yourself warned... Also there was the fact that this was the directed by the same guy who directed "Daredevil". Now that wasn't the worst movie I'd ever seen, but let's just say it was in the bottom 10th percentile. Where to begin, or perhaps is it even worth reviewing at all? There are some valuable lessons to be learned from "Ghostrider", and here they are: Just because it was a comic book doesn't mean it has to be a movie too. Just because Nicolas Cage is in it doesn't mean it's good. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you have to make a movie about skeletons riding choppers in Texas... There was one good thing about "Ghostrider" and that was Sam Elliot's voice. Now Sam Elliot was in the movie, and that wasn't so great, but Sam Elliot's voice is awesome. Of course you can always watch "The Big Lebowski" or "Tombstone" to really enjoy Sam Elliot without the distraction of a bad movie like I had to endure. Beef, it's what's for dinner.

"The Departed" won. My afterthought is that I am happy.

The Last King of Scotland

On Sunday in Colorado Springs there were 49 opportunities to see "Ghost Rider" and only 3 to see "The Last King of Scotland". I've been hearing about this movie for the last three months, in New York and L.A. they've been able to go see it since December. It's finally here, and it plays three times a day at one theater. Now I know, some of you have it worse, and I'm truly sorry for you. Maybe "Ghost Rider" is sweet, and maybe "Norbit" is the funniest movie you'll ever see, but give me a break. If movies are just about pleasing the most people possible with the least amount of effort, well I don't think I want to watch those movies.

Anyways, I kind of went off on a tangent, this is supposed to be about "The Last King of Scotland", right? I went into this movie knowing nothing except that Forrest Whittaker was playing the lead role in a movie called "The Last King of Scotland". Well, I really like when I see a movie like this without any preconcieved notions. The first twenty minutes or so you don't even see Whittaker, and when we finally meet him, he seems to be a side character. Then, we get thrown into his world, and it's a scary thing. At first, I thought I was going to like the General that he plays. He is fun, a man of the people, recognizes talent, and is a loyal friend. The way the story is told used this technique, of slowly unfolding the truth, very convincingly. I know I've been in situations where I though I knew what was going on, and was committed, only to find out I had been misled the whole time. This isn't a move that glosses over peoples dark side, it just starts out giving people the benefit of the doubt, and holds on to that thought until it becomes completely impossible.

"Transformers" is going to be awesome!

The Queen and who I think should win Best Picture...

"The Queen" was the last on my list of films nominated for Best Picture this year. I reall wanted to see "The Departed", and I saw it way before the awards were even on the horizon. I would have seen "Letters From Iwo Jima" even if it hadn't been nominated, the idea of Eastwood making films from both perspectives back-to-back is interesting to me. "Little Miss Sunshine" and Babel both looked alright, but I probably wouldn't have seen them if they hadn't been nominated. "The Queen" was the one that I actually had the hardest time going to see. You see, ever since childhood I've had this sense, maybe my sixth sense, that has helped me avoid movies that touch upon feelings that are best left untouched. "Sarah Plain and Tall" is the epitome of this sensation... a well made, well acted, beautiful looking movie that makes me want to cry just thinking abou it. And it's not a good crying like Forrest Gump loving Jenny, or William Wallace speaking French, it's that uncomfortable, depressing kind of crying. Anyways, I was afraid that "The Queen" was going to be a lot of dealing with pent-up female emotions, which is not something I really want to spend $7.75 on. I was pleasantly suprised. This is a film about tradition, politics, compromise, family and values. Of course there was some pent-up female emotion, but balanced well, so I can't complain too much. There is quite a bit of talk about Helen Mirren's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II, which is all deserved. What I liked especially though was James Cromwell's peformance as Prince Philip, who knows how accurate it is to the real man, but it was fun to watch. I enjoy actors who you can compare their wide range of roles and enjoy them all. For Cromwell, he's been from the farmer in "Babe" to the police cheif in "L.A. Confidential", no as Prince Philip he's captured the whole spectrum, nice work.

Alright, without any more suspense, I think "The Departed" is the best film from this last year. It is kind of sad though that Scorsese has done many films better than this one and has not yet won. "Taxi Driver" lost to "Rocky", "Goodfellas" lost to "Dances with Wolves" (please tell me it isn't true!) and "Gangs of New York" lost to "Chicago"... "Rocky", OK I understand that, but "Dances With Wolves" and "Chicago"! Perhaps the Academy Awards are not a good judge of lasting quality and cultural impact. Does anyone even remeber "Chicago"? Scorsese's work will stand the test of time, and when people are watching old movies on PBS fifty years from now, I think they'll be watching Academy Award losers more often than not.

Little Miss Sunshine and Children of Men

Along with "Babel" and soon "The Queen", I watched "Little Miss Sunshine" primarily because it has been nominated for Best Picture this year. It was a heart-warming, quirkily-funny, psudeo-inependent, family/road comedy. Maybe that's all I really should say. There wasn't really anything new here except instead of the typical pessimistic world view indy comedies generally have, this one actually saw the value of family and life. I would only really reccomend the movie for that reason, especially to people overwhelmed by dark, depressing, downlifting (?) comedies. Personally I understand why people like dark comedies, there's so much fluff out there, but it seems that there are only the two extremes nowadays. So in that way, "Little Miss Sunshine" does break the mould.

The best thing about "Children of Men" is that the filmmakers were able to create a county twenty years from now, playing upon all the fears that we have today. Take all the things that the news media is trying to scare us with; a flu pandemic, illegal immigration, Muslims, technology, Republicans, roadside improvised devices, genetic manipulation... and you've got "Children of Men" Now for me, atmosphere, scenerey, costumes/makeup and special effects all help tell a good story, and if done right can make an incredible difference in wether or not I'm going to like the film. Some movies have the news reports on televison, and the headlines on newspapers, but usually the filmmakers think we're idiots. The whole screen is taken up by Wolf Blitzer telling us about the most recent imprtant world event, or the newspaper spins around, banging into the camera, announcing the health crisis. Here Alfonso Cuaron (director) lets the newsbites, soundclips and headlines be background information. Now he does this clearly and inentionally, you might miss some of the information, but you get enough to know what's going on. I liked this because it's like real life, and it contributed to the sense that the characters in the film were getting the bits and pieces of news and piecing it together in real-time. Overall the movie was quite depressing, and it's sad to know that people are dealing with the exact same living conditions right now; refugee camps, immigrant discrimination, health epidemics, warzones in their streets... Will these problems reach London, or New York, or Indiana? I think everything in this movie is 100% possible, it's not a flood destroying the entire Earth, it's us not knowing you to live peacefully with each other, and that's been going on for quite some time now.

Babel

Alright, so this was going to be a blog about "Pan's Labyrinth", "Smokin' Aces" and "Babel", but as I was writing the first two reviews, my computer got accidently shut down and so I'm not going to start over again. I will say that "Pan" has nothing to do with Peter Pan, and although it was visually interesting, I can't reccomend it. "Aces", well if you liked the preview, you'll like the movie, if you didn't like the preview the movie has nothing for you.

Now on to Babel: It's been out for a while, and I must admit I only went to see it because of the Academy Award nomination. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu (the director) also made "21 Grams", which I really liked. From the previews for "Babel", the style of storytelling looked exactly like "21 Grams", that's not bad, it's just one of those things that once you've seen it done well, you don't need to see it again. Also the Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchett combination, it just didn't seem appealing to me, so when the movie first came out I didn't go. I was wrong on both counts. First off, the stroytelling style was not the same as "21 Grams". There was some overlap (backwards and forwards) in the multiple storylines, but there wasn't an elaborate effort to tie the stories together. Actually, the fact that all the stories were connected was completely unnecessary. I thought about it later, that there could have been the same four, strories without any connection, and the movie would have been exactly the same. Perhaps the interconnection was a little distracting, but I understand why Alejandro did it; audiences want one big movie. He made four little movies, and had to make them work together with more than just the same message. Some people might not get the message, so need the traditional interconnection. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett only were in one quarter of the movie. They worked really well together, I think especially Cate Blanchett. For the limited time and movement that she was allowed, I completely understood her character and point of view. Nate and I were talking about this movie just fifteen minutes before I saw it. He had observed that Brad Pitt reminded him of Pop. His greying beard, his face, and his movements and body language. Although I like Brad Pitt, he usually has very similar performances from one movie to the next, which has led me to question his acting ability. Nate was right, and I must admit that Pitt is a great actor. I think it was an understated approach, very thoughtful and somewhat laid-back. That combined with his eyes especially, but his beard too that would make me agree with Nate. I was reminded of a younger Pop in Tom Hanks perfomance in "Saving Private Ryan" and now we get the current Pop in "Babel" Do you think Pop will get any royalty checks?

Letters From Iwo Jima

When I saw "Flags of Our Fathers" last October, I had praise for Clint Eastwood's exploration into personal principles versus duty to your country. I was dissapointed with the lack of direction when it came to battle sequences and the unfolding of the plot. There were too many characters and too much Saving Private Ryan, when the focus should have been on the three main characters. I'm not sure if Eastwood filmed both of these movies at the same time, or what his editing process was, but "Letters From Iwo Jima" is a completely different, and better movie. The thread that is meant to tie the movie together is letters that are being written and sent from Iwo Jima. These are primarily letters written by Japanese soldiers and sailors as they await the impending attack by U.S. forces. This is more than just a gimmick, the letters allow us to know what these men are thinking. Considering that controlling emotions and placing honor and county above all else is predominant in their culture, reading their personal letters seems to be the only way to know how they truly feel. Now, the whole letter aspect would have made for a good movie, what makes this movie great is that Eastwood focuses on one man to personify the Japanese soldier. Ken Watanabe is the new General in charge of the forces on Iwo Jima. He has been to America and has American friends. He has a wife and children who he loves, living in Japan. He has a great tactical mind, and has a gift for leading men in battle. He cares deeply for the men he is responsible for, and does not make decisions without putting them first. He loves his country, and desires to protect and honor it. You can probably see that if all these things are true of one man, there are bound to be some struggles in a battle like the one for Iwo Jima. This is not an anti-war film, nor is it an anti-Amrican film. The conclusions drawn about the Japanese soldiers do not translate to the present day terrorists in the Middle East. This is a film designed to make us think about who we are, and who the man on the other side is. From a Christian perspective I feel that this is something we should all think about. Did God make (fill in the blank)? Obviously durring World War II, the Japanese attacked our country. Germans invaded our allies countries. Then Communists tried to spread their influence, and even more recently our country has been attacked again. Should we just passively take all attacks, and try just to understand the enemy? I don't believe so, but to dehumanize, or to make blanket judgements, or to put our trust in a government that... well you get my point. Go see "Letters From Iwo Jima".

Open Season and Perfume

The first movie I saw in 2007 was "Open Season". Jess and I took the kids to the Dollar Theater ($1.50 Theater) on New Years Day. It was entertaining, yet as is the case with most comedies (animated and otherwise) it wasn't as funny as the trailers promised.

I didn't take the kids to see "Perfume", I don't think they would really have liked it anyway. This is a movie about style. So much is it about style that character and story are on the side, and motivation and purpose are non-existant. We follow a boy from birth through his mid-twenties as he realizes his gift of extraordinary smell, and follows his nose to a disturbing conclusion. Now here I'm going to comment on the theater I went to. It's called Kimball's Twin Peak Theater and it is located downtown in Colorado Springs. If you want to see a film with an audience who is there to appreciate film, and if you want a beer while you watch, this is the only theater in Colorado Springs where you can. Of course it would be sweet to see "Pulp Fiction" at this theater, so as to enjoy a glass of beer while Travolta talks about enjoying a glass of beer at a theater, but sadly I never have had that chance. I did get to enjoy a beer while watching "Kill Bill" which I guess is close enough. Back to "Perfume", the reason I brought up the beer is that I had a beer, actually a Laughing Lab Scottish Ale while I watched the film. This film is about capturing scent, a visual representation of smells on the big sceen. To sit back and enjoy a good beer, slowly over the course of the film, I think actually made me appreciate the film more. Of course from what I understand there are other specific films that benefit from mind altering substances, that is not quite what I'm refering to. Instead of shoveling popcorn into your face, or eating two movie sized boxes of candy, maybe it would be better to find what compliments the film and enjoy them both. I know for myself movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and The Passion of the Christ" are foodless/beverageless films. Animated films at the $1.50 Theater are no holds barred events. Watching "The Big Lebowski" is a good time to break out the heavy cream, vodka and Kahlua. "Lord of the Rings" it's rabbit stew and boiled potatoes. And of course you can probably guess what goes well with a viewing of "Silence of the Lambs".