Slumdog Millionaire and Valkyrie

It had been a whole month since I really got to see a movie, so I was hoping for something good. "Slumdog Millionaire" is only playing at one theater here in town, and "Valkyrie" is two hours long (as opposed to "Benjamin Button" which is almost 3 hours long) Therefore, "Button" has been bumped to next weekend and I saw "Slumdog" and "Valkyrie" last night. Now I will review them both in the opposite order in which I saw them (so as to save the best for last).

"Valkyrie" was not what it shpuld have been. Director Bryan Singer has proven time and again that film can contain a powerful underlying message without being preachy or detracting from the story. Here unfortunately, the underlying message seems to be all he had to work with. Some Germans were really bad, and some Germans tried to stop them. But for me that just wasn't enough. I want some internal struggles, some difficult choices, some ironic twists of fate. Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Wilkinson and Terence Stamp are all actors who have so much more to give than this movie allowed. Take Cruise as the lead, early in the film he makes his decision to stop Hilter. As the movie unfold we see how this is a sacrifice, of himself, of others and even his family. But it never really got to my heart, it was more like the one track mind of an action hero, who no matter the collateral damage must catch that one thief. The film was German looking, which I'm trying to say as a good thing...

"Slumdog Millionaire" is one of those few films that I get to see that I have no idea what it's about before I walk in. That detail automatically improves my chances of liking the film because I don't have any predeterminded expectations. The director Danny Boyle has made a huge leap with this film. It reminded me of the difference between "Romeo and Juliet" and "Australia" for Baz Luhrmann. Boyle made "Trainspotting", "The Beach" and "28 Days Later". With "Slumdog" he goes wellbeyond the stylized excess of those films and makes a film that uses the camera as a tool to put us there with its subject. The method Boyle uses to tell this story felt fresh, interesting and right on. So often I feel cheated when the truth of the story is fianlly revealed, but Boyle found a way to unfold this plot that can suprise and feel natural at the same time. It is also nice to see a film with fresh faces that grow on you over the course of the film. Instead of thinking 'Tom Cruise did a great job' or 'Tom Cruise is better than that'. Since you've never seen these people before, as far as I know this is who they actually are. At the very least, it's the best movie I've ever seen them in...

Australia

"Australia" is a sweeping epic of a film that never loses focus on its main characters. I enjoyed how big everything was, yet at its heart was a simple story of the bond between three people. I happily went along with the old fashioned plot, characters, music and cinematography, all because it was delivered with such joyful energy and confidence in style. So often when Hollywood attempts to rehash a classic genre it comes off feeling like a spoof, or satire. The look is easy to emulate, the feel is a completely different matter. You can't have a modern film dressed up like a classic, you've got to go classic 100% (well at least like 95%). Baz Luhrmann who also directed "Moulin Rouge" and "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" has proven before that he can do style, with some heart. Here I think he has improved greatly on that by putting the heart first. Maybe this is a tribute to the film, that I think I have already said enough. This is the film most deserving of your attention this year, and I'm looking forward to discussing it with you after you've seen it.

Quantum of Solace

There are some films that are well made that I really don't like, "Quantum of Solace" is one of those films. It never does anything likable. Maybe I wasn't supposed to like it. What kind of entertainment is that? I think that "Casino Royale", the last Bond film and the first for Daniel Craig, was the best Bond film ever. So it isn't that I don't like the departure from typical Bond films of the last 46 years, it's more that this film didn't further the character or story in any significant way. In this film Bond chooses to be a rogue agent for practically the whole time. It felt more like a "Bourne" film than a Bond film, and that's ironic. Now I do really like the "Bourne" films, but that's not what I wanted to see last night. What they did in this film was to pick up right where "Casino Royale" left off. That was good. Then they teased us with a really interesting plot thread, which would further the story from the previous film and allow for deeper character developement and worthy opponents for Bond. It was at this point that someone (most likely the writer, but the director, producer and anyone else involved with the film must be blamed) decided to turn aside from the natural course of the film. They decided to inroduce a rather lame villian, with an super-lame assistant, and follow a side story that wasn't interesting at all. On top of that Bond never gets a chance to do any real good Bond stuff either. Sure there's boat chases, car chases, foot chases, airplane chases and stuff like that, but nothing memorable. Well, maybe I did like the fight that took place on scaffolding, but only because I actually sometimes work on scaffolding and it was interesting to see the choreography of the scene. Also, Olga Kurylenko as a Bond girl was a good choice. I like when the famale character has strength and a mind of her own without becoming a sidekick (as Halle Berry did in "Die Another Day). So I guess there were some positive aspects, but when Bond doesn't do, or say anything Bondian, then is it really Bond? Now that is the question.

RocknRolla

I don't know what Madonna ever saw in Guy Ritchie. She's the Material Girl, and he's a man's man. Now follow me on this one, and try to keep up will ya! First I'm going to take a crack at this as a movie review, then a cultural commentary, then finally wrap everything up from a Christian perspective. Let's just say this weekend you're all going to get your money's worth...

First Ritchie made "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" next he made "Snatch" and now,(completely ignoring "Swept Away" and a couple other movies) he has made "RocknRolla". Basically these are all the same movie. Now that's not a bad thing. Personally I enjoy a Guy Ritchie fix every few years. A bunch of Cockney gangsters doing Cockney gangster stuff for 2 hours is entertaining enough. Throw in an intentionally convoluted plot involving a huge cast of expendable characters set to British punk music, in a seedy yet richly textured enviornment, and what more could you really ask for? By the time the movie is over you might not really know what happened, but the right people got what they deserved and the energy of getting there overwhelms your senses to the point of making you not really care about loose ends or unexplained plot connections. "RocknRolla" doesn't quite glorify gangsters as well as say "The Godfather", but maybe next time I bust a cap in GTA4 I'll trash talk using the term "RocknRolla" and feel cool about myself, even if everyone else realizes how nerdy that sounds. Guy Ritchie isn't the greatest director out there, but he is the greatest director of the kind of movie he makes. I suggest that he keep it up, maybe one day he'll make the perfect one, at least if he keep's it up he'll satisfy my Guy Ritchie fix every few years.

A part of me wants Madonna to keep on being the Madonna from my youth, and it wants Guy Ritchie to keep on making Guy Ritchie movies. Of course the reality is that Madonna isn't getting any younger, and Guy Ritchie has been influenced by Madonna. As an impressionable boy living in America, Madonna was a part of my growing up wether or not anyone would like to admit it. Parents locking the door to their room to watch the Like a Prayer video. Soft drink companies and MTV banning videos. An oversatuation of our culture with her powerfully catchy sound and imagery. Now I know that some if not most of you are like "What's he talking about?" Hopefully that is the case. Maybe it was just me, but even if most people don't realize it, I think that cultural figures have a strong, lasting impact, even if just subconsciously. My guess is that if you are able to read this post, you and your family are all affected by the world around you. I recognize that my intake of movies on such a regular basis may be seen as a deliberate absorption of cultural garbage, but that's a discussion for another time. My point is that this subtle constant barrage of what the world is throwing at us is what has a lasting impact which is really dangerous. Madonna from the late 80s and early 90s is a part of who I have become. In the same way Guy Ritchie strikes a chord deep in my imagination. Playing Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, Marines and Russian terrorists... That was what three little boys did on Military installations back in the mid 80s. So it's only natural that Guy Ritchie would embody the next logical step for my imaginary violent action. As a memeber of society I so wanted Madonna and Guy Ritchie to live happily ever after. At the same time I wanted them both to retain eveything that make them who they are. Is that possible if they stay together?

Now to wrap it up: Of course I am concerened when I examine myself and realize what I just wrote. I wish I could kick Madonna out of my brain, and I don't think there's any redeeming value in any Guy Ritchie movie (there aren't any "good guys" so one of the "bad guys" has to win). I pray that God works in my heart so that I can overcome some of the garbage Madonna planted in my head 20 years ago. Who's fault is it? What can I do about it?
Since I keep on watching movies I must think that I am somehow above that impressionable 11 year old I use to be, right? I was brought up to critically examine the world around me, to examine everything from a Godly perspective. I do that with work, family, politics and culture. But am I doing it from a safe enough distance? I stayed away from that Rattlesnake a few weeks back, but I sat right through the Guy Ritchie movie. Why can't there be a Christian Madonna (no laughing at the irony please)? I want some infectious music that that Jude remembers when he's 31 that doesn't have the messages or imagery that Madonna propagated. I want him to have movies that spark his imagination that aren't as empty as "RocknRolla". Maybe this weekend wasn't the best time to address this, I haven't exactly used the best and brightest examples that our culture has produced. Ultimately I think that I do have some self examintion. I also hope and pray that we as Christians will take on a responsibility to positively influence culture instead of passively letting it control us. Maybe I can be the Christian Guy Ritchie.

Changeling

I saw two movies last night. If you appreciate Kevin Smith movies then you'll like his new one. If you don't know what I'm talking about then disregard this paragraph and move on to my review of Clint Eastwood's new film "Changeling".

"Changeling" is very well made, beautifully filmed, wonderfully cast and powerful in its message. Clint Eastwood has proven once again his seemingly effortless greatness as a director. His movies aren't blow-you-away great, but they have a subtle way of conveying a profound point without it seeming like preaching (not that there's anything wrong with preaching in and of itself). Eastwood has made a film that takes place in the 1920s and 30s that feels as much like that period as anything I've ever seen. It feels like the Bogart movies that Mom and I used to watch on television. Not only is the production design amazing, but the casting is incredible. Everyone fits into the period without it feeling corny or forced. I was especially impressed by the casting of side characters, and how they reminded me of specific actors from those older black and white films. Of course Angelina Jolie has a great performance, although maybe it's too steady. What I mean is that in films like "There Will Be Blood" Daniel Day Lewis had some oppurtunities to take his perfomance to the edge, going as far as possible without going over the top. Here Jolie keeps it toned down maybe just a little too much. I see what she was going for, and it was realistic and moving, but it never quite went far enough to really impress me. I did like the portayal of the Reverend by John Malkovich. Rarely do you see a Christian leader in such a positive light in Hollywood, but Eastwood and Malkovich have created a truly strong, upright Christian warrior. I liked how his character was in the world but not of the world. Usually we see pastors and preists who are so seperate from reality as to be useless. Here is a man who uses the pulpit, the media, lawyers and everyday citizens to help make the community a better place. I know the way I just said that sounded so cliche, but for me it was a great message and a very poignant character. With all the positive feeling I had about the film, of course there were some negatives; like most modern films about the 20s and 30s, 2008 sensibilities seem to clash in a drastic way. I realize that the same evil existed 80 years ago that exists today, but you see things here that you never would have seen in those Bogart films. Maybe that's the point. As with "No Country for Old Men" part of the message in this film may be that men have been commiting unspeakable evils forever and mothers have been fighting for their children forever. A good thing to be reminded of, but I would have personally appreciated the film more if it could have stuch with the feel of the time period and conveyed the same message.

W.

I was once told that Oliver Stone is a horrible man becuase of his willingness to twist the truth in order to sway public opinion. Retelling history is an important responsibility, that should not be taken lightly. In order to truly learn from past mistakes and successes, we must have a clear perspective on what really happened, right? Maybe not. Perhaps we can learn something from a fable or an innacurate story just as well. Not to compare the two, but Jesus used parables, which because they were from God were by defenition true, but that doesn't mean that they ever really happened to anyone. And here's my point, if you look at the film "W." like you would look at the parable of the Prodigal Son, then maybe there is a good lesson to be learned. The strongest message I came home with last night was that God's will has protected our Country. Maybe W. isn't the most qualified. Maybe he's not the smartest guy in the room. Maybe he doesn't have the smoothest speech. But, God knew what this Country needed at an important point in history, and President Bush was the right man at the right time. I was suprised how this film portrayed Bush as a man so confident in his faith. His acceptance of Christ was a changing point, and his heart and mind have been guided by that life changing moment. Of course the film as expected makes plenty of fun of all the mistakes, shortcomings, and flaws that this one man has. And it was well done, it was funny, and sometimes scary. It is scary when you realize that our Country is ultimately run by a man, and every man has his faults. It's also scary to see the power-hungry, evil men who attempt to influence the man on top. God has been merciful to us even though we are undeserving. We deserved an Al Gore as President on 9/11. We deserve a Barack Obama in January. Maybe this movie will work an unintended affect and jolt some people into voting for the candidate who would honor God the most.

Appaloosa and Body of Lies

The 'New Western' is here to stay. "Unforgiven", "Open Range" and now "Appaloosa". Although these are thoughtful, unblinking, realistic examinations of what it was like to live in that time and place, that doesn't equal a satisfying moviegoing experience. It's like first there were simple Cowboy vs Indian adventures from Pop's childhood. Then there were the epic soul searching films from John Ford and John Wayne. Then came Clint Eastwood and the Spaghetti Western with the anti-hero and brutal violence. Then the 80's turned the Western into your typical action movie with a Western setting. Finally we have come to the Western of today, which probably started with Eastwood's "Unforgiven". (Of course I must mention "Tombstone", which doesn't quite fit into any of these categories, but deserves recognition solely based on Val Kilmer's performance). That being said, for me if you've seen one Western from each category, you've seen 'em all... Watch "High Noon", "The Searchers", "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly", skip the 80's Western, watch "Tombstone" and then "Unforgiven". Once you've checked those off your list, you're good to go. If you are like me and you can't help yourself, and just keep wathing Westerns past the point of reason, then "Appaloosa" isn't a bad choice. It's got great acting, some good character build-up (I mean we hear things about certain characters which builds-up our anticipation for things to happen later) and then of course there's Viggo Mortensen's facial hair. Seriously, if Al Pacino's haircut was a bad prop in the horrible movie "88 Minutes", then Viggo's beard in this film is like an Oscar-worthy supporting actor. He was great in "Eastern Promises" and he shows strength once again here. Ed Harris patiently directs and acts his way through, and Jeremy Irons is as always a great bad guy. All the elements are here, and if you've got the desire to see Cowboys sometimes doing Cowboy stuff, then here's a movie for you.

Nate and I got to talk about "Body of Lies" the day after we each saw it. As I have said before, to have someone to talk with about the movie always makes it better. Ridley Scott and I haven't always seen eye to eye on how his films should go. I could go into detail about this, but I'll try to stay focused on the movie at hand. This time I think his directing style and technique were right on. The premise of the film required that things happen quickly, with lots of detail and technological wizardry. One guy sits in front of a giant monitor watching the events unfold via sattelite, while the other guy is on the ground, having the stuff happen to him. As Nate said to me, these two guys are basically the same guy, just reacting differently based on their current enviornment. These two CIA agents want to protect America. They want to kill the bad guys and stop them from killing us. Simple, right? With Leonardo and Crowe playing the leads, there's no question that the acting was up to the task. Then there was Ali Suliman as the Intelligence Minister of Jordan, who has a very powerful preformance as well. The problem I had with "Body of Lies" was not with what was in the movie, but with what the movie lacked. That may be the same problem I have with Scott as a director overall. It is that he presents a dilemma, then paints a vivid picture of all the contributing factors, and then ends the film with absolutely no resolution. Now you know I'm not looking for a happy ending, but that kind of pessimism is even difficult for me to accept. I think about Spielberg and his "Munich". That film deals with many of the same issues that "Body of Lies" addresses, but it's characters have souls, and ultimately the conclusion is reached that there is hope, even if it is an uphill battle. Now Scott brings us a film, where only Leonardo has a soul, and his answer is to drop out of the picture altogether. Of course as I write this I realize what thought I am putting into Scott's ommision of conclusions, therefore I have to fill in the pieces myself. In this specific case perhaps that was a stroke of genius, so therefore I retract my previous statemnent and admit that this was a very good film.

Burn After Reading

My weekend movie viewing ended on a positive note. I gave De Niro and Pacino respect, and was dissapointed, but with the Coen brothers my hopes were met. This is probably one of the most obvious arguments for picking a movie based on director(s) rather than based on the actor(s). Of course this is no "No Country For Old Men", but then it wasn't trying to be. It was a dark, satirical comedy with off-the-wall characters, set to a relatively quick pace. I laughed hard, I enjoyed the performances of actors in roles not typically their own, and I wasn't treated like an absolute idiot. What more could one want out of a movie? At the same time I realize that after the bad experience on Friday, any movie would seem good. To be fair, this movie doesn't really have any redeeming values, it doesn't have any values at all really. Everyone deserved what they got or didn't get, and there wasn't any happiness on screen. I know what you're thinking; 'Peter, dark comedies aren't supposed to make you feel good'. But I would reply that the great ones, like "Dr Strangelove" maybe don't offer any hope or happiness, but they do scare you, jolt your everyday life to let you know that there's scary stuff out there and the people around you, the ones running the show are the scariest. "Burn After Reading" almost made me feel that, but it didn't go quite far enough as far as I'm concerened. Maybe next time the Coen brothers can cross "No Country For Old Men" with "Burn After Reading" and make something that burns an idea into our minds and makes us laugh too.

Righteous Kill

It's been four weeks since my last movie, it felt like an eternity.  Originally I had hope to go to two movies tonight, but due to theater timetables it didn't work out this time.  I had to make a hard choice; which movie to see?  Of course I plan on seeing the other movie tomorrow, but still which movie you see first is a very important decision, and hopefully I chose well...  I made my pick based on respect.  Respect for two of the greatest actors ever; De Niro and Pacino.  "Righteous Kill" is their third best movie together, which by the way also makes it their worst movie together (do the math).  I'm going to make this review easy on myself; this was a bad movie with two great actors giving alright performances.  It was a bad movie because it insulted my intelligence and didn't really go anywhere interesting.  It had De Niro and Pacino doing De Niro and Pacino stuff, but not De Niro and Pacino at their peak.  "Heat" had De Niro and Pacino together, at their peak not only doing their stuff, but talking about their stuff, which was just wonderful.  "The Godfather Part II" had both doing their stuff, not together mind you, but there on the same screen nevertheless.  "Righteous Kill" had the unintended affect of making me think more about those two films instead of the movie I was sitting through.  Hopefully tomorrow my movie order pays off and I get to finish off with a good movie to write about.

The Clone Wars

George Lucas made one of the greatest American movies, and it's all been downhill since then... That is too harsh, for every Jar Jar Binks, there's been an Obi Wan Kenobi, so I shouldn't complain. Last night the kids and I saw his new animated film "Star Wars: The Clone Wars". It shows once again that his strength is the visual representation of a vivid imagination, and his weakness is anything to do with human beings. Everything in this movie looked great and felt just like a "live action" Star Wars movie, except for the actors. Unfortunately this can be said about his last three "live action" movies as well. I enjoyed the action, the space battles, the locations and the light sabers. I winced whenever a line of dialogue was uttered, and I had a hard time figuring out how the digital representation of Natalie Portman could be so unhot, even creepy. There was a very sweet scene in which the Jedi along with the currently good Clone Troopers are scaling a cliff, literally fighting uphill as the Droid army attempts to hold them back. Just the idea of this battle was cool, and the filmmakers and artists did a great job of creating this sequence. It reminded me of the scene when Jabba is planning on executing Luke, Han and Chewie. It reminded me of the Battle for Hoth. It reminded me of Luke and Leia trying to escape from the Stormtroopers in "A New Hope". I like scenes that bring back good memories, so in that way "Clone Wars" was a fun way to continue the Star Wars experience.

Tropic Thunder

Alright, this isn't the best comedy ever made. I didn't expect it to be, but for some reason I thought it would be closer. That's not to say that it didn't have its moments, and it sure did make me laugh much more than most recent comedies. "Juno" and before that "Napoleon Dynamite" were original, honestly funny films. "Tropic Thunder" is not in that category, but then it's not trying to be. Not too suprisingly it's more like "Zoolander", which was very funny for what it was. The problem is that lampooning a specific genre only works for so long, and "Tropic Thunder" doesn't hold up for the duration. All the main characters fulfill their contractual obligations, but only Robert Downey Jr. puts in any overytime. That being said, I can only imagine how blown away by his perfomance I would have been if only I hadn't seen any trailers. Once again those idiots at the trailer factory gave us way too much of the best stuff, leaving me with a bad case of deja vu there in the theater. Why pay for what I got for free 100 times in the last two months? That might be unfair though, because there is a little bit that wasn't in the trailer, and Downey s worth the price of admission. Then there's Tom Cruise. This morning it came to me that he was probably trying in some strange way to pay tribute to Peter Sellers in "Dr. Strangelove". This is a tall order to fill, and Tom wasn't up to the task. He was funny in a "Magnolia" sort of way, but once again, it didn't quite live up to the hype. Now of course my mind is making some connections; Tom Cruise was paying homage to a character from a Stanley Kubrick film, whos final film he starred in... and that character was played by an actor who was mentioned by Robert Downey Jr's character in a speech earlier in the film... Is that an intentional circular connection meant to add depth to an otherwise shallow Hollywood comedy? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Personally if it makes me think about the movie more, then I'd have to say it was good.

X-Files: I Want To Believe

First off, I didn't mention last week that "The Dark Knight" was my 100th posting, which I thought was pretty cool, but enough about that, here's my 101st posting:

Rob, Justin and I would rent VHS tapes of early X-Files episodes down at the only video store in Buena Vista. We'd get some snacks, some Mountain Dew, and turn off the lights and watch Mulder and Scully delve into the mysteries of the unexplained. It was fun, and it got better as the seasons progressed. When we moved to Colorado Springs, it quickly became a tradition to gather together Sunday night and watch the new episodes. Soon enough Jess got roped in and all of a sudden we had good food to go along with the conspiracies, aliens, the Cancer Man, tongue-in-cheek humor and people with stretchy fingers. Since then I haven't commited myself to a television program, and my life is better for it (as far as I know). Watching "I Want To Believe" brought back all those good memories for me. The actors have aged about ten years or so, and so have their characters. The plot of the film was independent from the soap operaish storyline of the final episodes of the tv show. This is good, because instead of being a continuation of the show it was more of a revisiting. Scully and Mulder had a good chemistry, and it remains here in the film. Chris Carter, the director of this film as well as the creator of the series, has done a great job of capturing what was great about X-Files and telling a thoughtful sotry at the same time. Unlike what has become vogue in recent psychological thrillers, this film actually searches for answers. Now in typical X-Files tradition it asks more questions than it provides answers, but still it more interesting to ask than to ignore the obvious. If any of you see the film, the most thought-provoking question for me was the discussion that Scully and Mulder have about God's purpose in creating certain people. I know I'm being vague, but I'd hate to give away too much. It's just interesting that two dynamic characters in a secular film can struggle so realistically with a subject that we Christians avoid like the plague. Anyways, if you liked the X-Files, this is for you. If not, then go see "Wall-E" again.

The Dark Knight

Where to begin? There is so much that could be written and discussed about this film, and this will just be the start for me. Of course I am only in the early stages of contemplating the overwhelming scope of the film, so don't be surprised if I miss entire points or contradict myself later on. "The Dark Knight" is a great sequel. In that, I mean that it depends so deeply on the first film, that you must have seen "Batman Begins" to fully appreciate and understand this film. For me that is a strength, I don't like treading over old ground just for the sake of newbies, and I respect that the director Christopher Nolan didn't dumb it down. At the same time, this film was not as introspective as the first. There was less Bruce Wayne struggling with Batman and more Bruce Wayne being Batman. I understand how for most people that would be a good selling point, but as I get older I prefer to know why people do things than to just watch them doing things. Perhaps that is too harsh a criticism, because the doing, the action was incredible, and there was plenty of the internal struggling, the hard choices and the twisting plot to make anyone happy. And there is the point of the the movie; 'choices'. Here is where I would start to give away too much by saying any more, but I was pleasantly surprised with how the film was obvious and subtle in how the central thread revealed itself. At first it seemed as thought the film was on one track, then after a gradual shift, bam! it hit me that I had been taken someplace completed unexpected. I will say that the cast of characters this time around was even bigger and stronger than the first film. There are six main characters, each of whom is essential to the plot, which in and of itself lends complexity and depth to the story. I especially like the relationship that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and Alfred (Michael Caine) have in the film. In the other Batman films Alfred was a Johnny-on-the-spot butler, here as in "Batman Begins" he is so much more, and Batman would be lost without him. And Finally for now, the best part of this new Batman is far and away Heath Ledger's Joker. I find it difficult to separate my continued sadness over his passing, from a great appreciation of his work in this film. He does become immersed in the role, yet he is still there himself, that same kid from "A Knights Tale" and "10 Things I Hate About You". As Joker, he is everything I could want in a villain; evil, intelligent, ruthless, creepy, funny, unpredictable, and violent. Batman needed a worthy opponent, and in Heath Ledger's Joker he got more than he bargained for. "Do you want to see a magic trick?"

Journey to the Center of the Earth, College Road Trip and Hellboy 2

Ashley, Aravis and I got to see a movie, Jude and I got to see a movie and I got to see my own movie too. All in all it was a good weekend for movies, especially considering I worked Saturday and got a late movie-going start. The girls and I got to see "College Road Trip". Martin Lawrence is an aquired taste, I think he's funny, but he's funny in his own way if you know what I mean. The premise of the movie is that the Martin Lawrence character takes his daughter (played by Raven Symone) to visit a couple prospect colleges. She wants to go to Georgetown, which is 700 miles away, he wants her to attend Northwestern which is 23 minutes away. The little brother and genius pig tag along to make the trip more exciting, and poof! you've got the makings of a great movie. It was fun, maybe not the stand in line for four hours, see it in IMAX, stay awake at night thinking about it kind of fun. But it is fun to see with your 4 and 6 year old daughters. So if you have some, then this movie is for you.
Jude and I saw "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D" and it was 3D. I've seen a couple other films that utilized this new 3D technology, and this by far did it the best. As expected the movie was mostly an attempt to recreate the fun of a Disneyland ride. There were incredible sights, thrilling speed, and startling surprises. Brendan Fraser is a entertaining actor, and his presence alone at least keeps a smile on my face. The other two characters played by Josh Hutcherson and Anita Briem were well cast, and although the movie was on the rails in every way, it was still fun. Jude loved it, so what else really matters?
I like "Hellboy 2" for the same reasons I liked "Hellboy". Unique comic book heros, fighing crazy bad guys in cool places. The humor and chemistry worked for me in both films, and this time around I really liked the artistic vision created onscreen. I didn't like Guillermo del Toro's last film "Pan's Labyrinth", but it was a good try. I did like his "Blade 2" and the first "Hellboy", so he's on a pretty good track since he's about to be directing "The Hobbit". Anyways, back to the movie at hand. "Hellboy 2" is goofy, the premise and look of the characters are all goofy and far fetched. But it's a comic book, so that's alright. Sometimes it's good to go over the top, and if you go over the top you might as well go all the way over. I like that Hellboy smoke cigars, I like that he gets pissed when the bad guy causes him to drop it, and I like that when the fight's over he picks it back up and continues to smoke it. What I like most of all is the disclaimer at the end of the movie where the filmmakers try to distance themselves from tabacco use depicted in the film. Maybe in "Hellboy 3" they can have him trying to quit, getting really grumpy and they can use this as a tagline: "There'll be Cold Turkey in Hell Tonight!" or maybe: "Cold Turkey is a Dish Best Served Hot!"

Hancock

Some movies seem to exist merely to pass the time. These are the movies that I don't regret seeing, but in retrospect I feel as though I could have been doing something better with my time, like watching a better movie. "Hancock" could have been such a better movie. So much potential, so many strenghts, but alas, as DeNiro says in "Copland" this movie blew it. What Hollywood needs to realize is that you can not be everything to everone in the same movie. If you want to aim for the lowest common denominator, just hire Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Jack Black and have a camera crew follow them around for a week. You're sure to have enough funny stuff to fill a two hour movie slot. On the other hand, if you want to put a twist on the super hero genre, making a introspective action film, then go ahead, hire Will Smith and make him a brooding, alcoholic, despised, has-been. Just don't try to throw in the Adam Sandler humor too. Then to make things worse, instead of trusting the instincts of the original concept, they felt as though we needed a dumbed-down, paint-by-the-numbers, typical Hollywood ending. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for some dark, shocking twist. I'm OK with a happy ending and all, but give me a break. Can't they be just a little more creative than this? Will Smith is a good actor, and has been in some of the most entertaining Hollywood blockbusters. He did good, but this movie could have been a whole lot better.

No Direction Home and I'm Not There

First off, let me say that I can hardly believe that "No Direction Home" originally was broadcast almost 3 years ago! It's one of those films that sticks with me, and now whenever I hear Dylan music, I see footage from this film. I know I've talked to quite a few of you about how much I liked the film when I saw it, and now that I've seen "I'm Not There", I have an even greater appreciation for the first film. Let me start again by reviewing the weaker film, even though it's chronologically the most recently viewed.

"I'm Not There" tries to present itself in the style of a Bob Dylan song. You're never supposed to be sure about the order of context of the images and characters that you're seeing. Everything is meant to seem random and far out, yet be deep and meaningful at the same time. Somehow Dylan is able to convey strong emotion with lyrics that otherwise make no sense at all. This movie fails utterly in its attempt to do the same. Its only success is in one performance that captures Dylan as he was and an other performance that doesn't seem to fit in a Dylan movie, yet works on its own somehow. First, Cate Blanchett does meet all the expectations of the buzz surrounding her portrayal of Dylan. At first it is distracting, especially considering some of the gender specific issues dealt with, but then she gets rolling, and delivers some dialogue that seems so perfectly Dylan, that I was blown away. She is for sure one of the best actresses (or actors) of all time. The other positive note was Heath Ledger's performance. He was convincing and filled out the role that was written for him. Unfortunately like so much of the film, the part which he played didn't really fit into place at all. As a stand alone character, it definitely was good, and really that's all you can expect from an actor, the rest is up to the director, and in this case the director let down the whole cast.

"No Direction Home" is Martin Scorsese's documentary about Bob Dylan. Recently I wrote about "Shine A Light", which was a concert film, a brief glimpse at a day in the life of the Rolling Stones. "No Direction Home" is a true documentary, investigating the life of a man from not only his own perspective, but also from those who were there, his friends, co-workers and followers. Just the old footage and interviews would have made for an interesting film, but throw in Scorsese's direction and you've got greatness. Scorsese tells Dylan's life not as a biography, but as dramatic piece of history. Here's a man who was the leader of a movement, yet refuses to acknowledge his role, and even went to the extreme of turning his back on the movement, quite literally. The film shows Dylan as a selfish, introverted genius. My guess is that Scorsese is one of the only directors who can so directly portray a mans dark side, yet in the end he is unequivocally the hero. If you want to learn more about one of the most influential men in American culture, and you want some great music too, this film is for you. My favorite parts take place when Dylan stared playing an electric guitar. Just listen to the music, and watch how the crowd reacts, it's amazing. This film ends so early in Dylan's career that I can only hope that Scorsese would make two or three more films continuing the story.

Wall-E

Jess, Jude, Ashley, Aravis and I all went to see "Wall-E" last night. About half-way through the previews Aravis asked me when the movie was going to start? Aravis doesn't like previews. Then the previews ended and they played the short film "Presto", which was itself worth the price of admission. I was laughing so hard, it was a good thing it was only a short film or I may have hurt myself. Then finally the movie began. It's going to become more and more difficult to review Pixar movies, since they are so consistently great. They have all been in a class all their own, and really can only be compared to themselves and great live-action films. "Wall-E" is no different. A character who cannot speak and was drawn in a computer gives a great performance. The visuals are rich and beautiful, even though they consist primarily of a desolate, trash strewn landscape. The screenplay is intelligent and thoughtful without being preachy or demeaning (see "Happy Feet" if you want to be demeaned). The use of music and cultural references throughout the film was genius, it really added a layer of context for me. In that regard I felt as though Pixar somehow moved even closer to making an important movie, not just an entertaining one. What I mean by that is that up till now they have been imaginative stroytellers, perhaps they are moving in the direction of using that talent for a higher purpose. Of course that is both exciting and scary at the same time. Spielberg made "Schindler's List", Mel Gibson made "The Passion of the Christ" and Oliver Stone is making "W". My point is that truly great films have more than just great stories, and I think Pixar is on the path to a truly great film. "Wall-E" is funny, heart-warming, exciting, stunning and memorable. Now I know what you're thinking; "tell us something we didn't already know!"... Since I don't have anything new to tell you, I'm just going to show you my list of the order of Pixar films from 'most best' to 'less best'... Here it is:

1. "Finding Nemo"
2. "Monsters Inc."
3. "Ratatouille"
4. "Toy Story 2"
5. "Wall-E"
6 "The Incredibles"
7. "A Bug's Life"
8. "Toy Story"
9. "Cars"

Hopefully "Toy Story 3" will be at the top of the list next year, at the very least it'll bump "Toy Story 2" down to #5. Batman's almost here! Aren't you excited yet?!

Mongol and Wanted

When you go see two movies in the same night, it is important to see the better film second, so that it will leave a longer lasting impression on your mind. Unfortuantely, due to theater scheduling, this sometimes is impossible. Rob and I went to the downtown Colorado Springs movie theater to see "Mongol" at its last showing of the night (8:00) at the only theater showing it in town. Then we headed south to one of the cineplexes to catch "Wanted" at 10:45. If this world were a better place, they'd be showing "Mongol" on 16 sceens all over town, and "Wanted" would have gone directly to DVD. I'm going to review "Wanted" first to help you avoid the same bad taste in your mouth that I had last night.

Don't get me wrong, "Wanted" had its moments. The special effects are top of the line, and Nate's girlfriend is at the peak of her game, making what she does look effortless. Too bad the movie wasn't about Angelina's character, and even though about 90 minutes of the 110 minute movie were special effects, it wasn't quite enough. Ultimately what made this a bad movie was that it couldn't be "Fight Club" Every twist, every turn, every shocking revelation and every extreme camera angle were trying so hard, but not quite making it. Not everyone is going to see this as an attempt to duplicate "Fight Club" but I feel it's undeniable. The narrator/main character is a wimpy loser who is really a macho winner. His boss' face ripples in slow motion. Someone is not who we think they are (suprise, suprise!). The soft spoken rational man must at one point become the motivitional leader with creative uses of obscenities. Must I go on? If you already have seen "Fight Club" and liked it, watch it again, come on over to my house and watch it with me, we'll make popcorn. If you haven't seen "Fight Club" yet and you like Meatloaf, what's wrong with you? If you don't like Meatlof, or if you're thinking 'I like cold meatloaf sandwiches.' then maybe you should just forget about this review and go see "Wall-e" again while you wait for my review of that movie.

"Mongol" was everything that "Wanted" wasn't and so much more. This film took me to a time and place I know very little about and made me want to know more. It's amazing how there seems to be a basic thread throughout history regarding man's struggle not only to survive, but to dominate. Who better to use as an example than Genghis Khan? I don't have any idea how accurate this representation of his early life is, but I intend to find out. What really matters in a movie like this isn't the accuracy, but the presentation. The locations were lush, beautiful, dreary, and unique. The characters were rich, deep, hard and beautiful. The story was interesting, thoughtful and patient (which does mean slow, but in a good way). The battle sequences were as good as any other movie, but not too long and were not the center of the film. And the music was perfect, conjuring up all the right colors at the right times. I especially liked the wolf on the mountain, the filmmakers aren't afraid to use some imagery to explain some things that aren't easy to explain. So in conclusion, if "Mongol" comes to your town, go ahead and see it, just make sure you don't accidently stumble into one of the 16 sceens showing "Wanted".

The Happening

All you need is love.

"The Happening" is a great movie. M. Night Shyamalan is a master storyteller, and once again he delivers. He's not a tradional storyteller, he has found the secret to using all aspects of film to tell his story. Every layer of the film is used, from the camera's perspective, the actor's expressions, the news clips on television, as well as the music and sound. What seperates Shyamalan from your everyday director is that nothing is a gimmick, everything is a piece of the story's puzzle. In the next paragraph I discuss some things that only people who've already seen the movie should read. Here I can only say that the film could be about many different things, there is an obvious level that I think Shyamalan uses to misdirect is, or perhaps to comment on our gullibility. But I personally believe that what he ultimately is suggesting is that information isn't necessarily truth, and therefore is worse than not knowing anything. "The Happening" does what most movies today don't even come close to, it gives you something to think and talk about.

This movie is about love, and the its healing properties. It isn't about evolution, climate change, pollution, government conspiracies or bio-warfare. It's about love. What I think is amazing is that it deals with all of those issues, or perhaps uses those issues as a backdrop, but never does it really stray from its true purpose. Of couse most great films do this, for some reason I was thinking of "Key Largo" just now. It is a film (like so many other Bogart films) about man's dual nature. Sure there's a hurricaine, gangsters, palm trees, a girl and an open bar, but really it's about what Bogart is going to do. Is he going to do the easy thing or the right thing? To keep us interested a good director gives us plenty to occupy our eyes and ears, but a great director fills up our minds too. The two questions I would ask those of you who've already seen "The Happening" are this; 1. Did the old lady at the end of the film get infected, or was here fate a result of something else? 2. What caused the infection to end? Was it somehow related to Marky Mark?

Kung Fu Panda and You Don't Mess With The Zohan

"Kung Fu Panda" is as good as it gets without being Pixar. It was funny, exciting, good-hearted and well animated. Sure, on the car ride home I had to tell Aravis not to use Kung Fu on her brother, but that's a small price to pay for the lasting entertainment value. Jack Black didn't just voice the Panda, the filmmakers made Jack Black into a Panda, and that's a good thing. From the opening title sequence and song (sung by Black) things were on the right track. The humor was just intelligent enough to have me laughing, along with the cartoon slapstick to keep the kids happy. I think you can tell when the filmmakers are truly considering their audience, and the makers of "Kung Fu Panda" got it all right. Even to the point that the villain was appropriately foreboding, without being too scary. There is a scene midway throught the film when we see him chained in prison, and the setup is great, showing the extreme to which his captors have gone, but it never quite leaves the realm of 'cartoon' therefore making it suitable for the kids. My kids and I liked the movie, and if that isn't good enough for you, and don't know what is.

I have quite a few things I could say about "You Don't Mess With The Zohan". One of the things I could say is; it was a very funny movie. Something else I could say is; Adam Sandler did a great job creating and filling out an interesting, entertaining character. I could also say that; the overall story was good-spirited and positive. All of these things are true, but last night as I thought what to write about this movie I decided to focus on something different: This movie unintentionally succeeds in acomplishing the opposite of what it intends. At the risk of looking for meaning in an Adam Sandler movie, here's what I'm talking about. The main character (Zohan) is a promiscuous Israeli who initially is at odds with his Palestinian neighbors until he falls 'in love' with one of them. The movie is trying to tell us we should all just get along, because all we need is love, and by love it means, well you know what I mean. Anyways, what I thought was interesting is that the only people this message is going to work for are adolescent American boys. This movie has gone beyond simplifying the issue. It's even gone past dumbing-down the issue. "You Don't Mess With The Zohan" has mentally retarded the issue of the Middle Eastern conflict. Perhaps I misspoke when I said that the filmmakers unintentionally did this. I don't know what the purpose of this movie was. I hope it was harmless fun. I suspect it was a misguided attempt at a good message. I'm afraid it was something else and I'm afraid it's this kind of mainstream thinking (and I say 'thinking' loosely) that will lead us to our next President-elect.

Indiana Jones Part 4

I have some good news and I have some bad news. You want to hear the bad news first? "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It's not even "The Last Crusade". Maybe my perception of both of those movies is so tainted by childhood and fond memories that it is unfair of me to compare them to the newest film, but I can't help it.

The good news is that it's Indiana Jones, through and through. Now sure, we get to see Indiana do some stuff we never expected to see him doing (and to be any more specific might ruin some suprises, so I won't). But even in these new developements, he handles them like Indian Jones would. It's never been the years acording to Indiana, rather the mileage, so don't let any detractors or Indy-bashers keep you from seeing this movie. It is fun, and in keeping with the spirit of the series. As I just left the theater an hour or so ago, I find that the film is already growing on me. I especially liked one of the closing scenes, and I can imagine what Spielberg's intent was in shooting it the way he did. What'll be best about this movie in the long run is finding ways to argue both sides of the "Was it a good or bad Indiana Jones movie?" question. Sometimes the most entertaining films are also in some ways the worst, if you don't believe me, watch "Jurrasic Park" again. And I don't mean that in a bad way, perhaps we (and when I say "we" I mean myself) take movies too seriously, and every once in a while we need a great director along with a great actor to make a fun movie, like "Indiana Jones 4".

Speed Racer

The Wachowski brothers made changed movies forever when they made "The Matrix". I'd never seen a film like it before, and nothing since has made such an impact. I'm not talking just about a specific special effect, but rather how the special effects were used to contribute to the story. The action, costumes, visuals, dialouge, and special effects all worked together to create a great film. Unfortunately, as with most sequels, the Wachowski brothers lost sight of their vision and the subsequent movies were bogged down with trying to be bigger or more convoluted or something I can't explain that just didn't work.


I talked about "The Matrix" because when I was watching "Speed Racer" last night I felt as though the brothers had recaptured that same energy. This is an exciting movie, full of energy, vibrant colors and speed. It also is a well made film, flowing smoothly, giving us dynamic characters and a good story. Notice that this isn't a great film, in the sense that the story definitely is there as a vehicle for the visuals, but that's not a bad thing. I hated "Bewoulf" because it showed us things that should have been shown with real actors instead of some animation gimmick. Here in "Speed Racer" the style used is right on. The Wachowski brothers and the artists involved have created brought a cartoon to life like never before. I was reminded of "Sin City" sure, but that was a dark comic book, and here is a bright Japanese televison cartoon on the big screen.

Last week I criticized "Iron Man" for its lack of something. That 'something' is sometimes difficult to explain, but let's just say that "Speed Racer" has it. Maybe this isn't the right word, but 'soul' comes to mind. You know how you can tell the difference between a movie made by people who just want to reap the profits, and a film made by people in love with filmmaking? That's the difference between "Iron Man" and "Speed Racer".

Finally, I want to be sure when reviewing movie under the "R" rating to note the appropriateness for younger viewers. I sure don't want to do a Focus on the Family bad-word/cigarette-lit/talking-back-to-parents count, but like I said last week, it's not cool that Hollywood targets kids with unsuitable movies. That being said, I did take Jude and Ashley to "Speed Racer" and there were really only two things that I had a problem with. One was a scene that combined Piranhas with the 'Little Dutch Boy' fable, and another negative use of a finger later on in the film. If I had made the movie I wouldn't have included either of those scenes, but I feel as though in this case the good-natured spirit of the film far outweighed any knocks against it.

Less than two weeks until Indiana Jones, I'm so excited.

Iron Man

I'm going to do this review a little different, I'm going to try to address a bunch of issues real quickly, so here goes:

1. "Iron Man", although it's being advertised quite a lot durring kids tv programming is not for little kids. It's got some subject matter that is a little too mature for children, think James Bond and you'll know what I'm talking about. But that's alright kids, because we've got "Wall-e" coming out soon, and that'll make up for any and all movies you may feel like you're missing out on.

2. Ben completely ruined "Iron Man" for me because of the Onion web clip he posted over on the family site. It was unavoidable to compare the "feature length film" to the trailer, and let's just say that the trailer was better. The trailer was like the Cliff Notes of the movie. You get all, and I do mean all the best stuff without the boring character developement filler. If you haven't seen the trailer yet, go to the link for trailers to the right of this blog, and save yourself 8 bucks.

3. It's kind of hard to appreciate "Iron Man" on any level after you've just seen the new Batman trailer. Am I doing it again? Am I building up too much anticipation in my own mind for this movie? I sincerely hope not, but it feels like the days are dragging so slowly waiting for July 18th.

4. Maybe you shouldn't be thinking about the trailers you saw before the movie while you're watching the movie, but I don't know if I could be more dissapointed than I am with this "Prince Caspian" .... ( I used the "...." because I was going to say "crap", then I thought I'd say "excrement", perhaps I'd even shock some people by using a real bad word, but I decided to leave it up to your own discretion. Anyways, how can a group of filmmakers get so much so wrong? I am sad. Perhaps this just means that the BBC version it, and I need to realize that the best way to enjoy this series is the way it was meant to be enjoyed, in my own imagination.

5. In closing, the best part of "Iron Man" was Robert Downey Jr's final line, and the second best was the action scene towards the end of the film because I actually drifted off for a few minutes and felt well rested for the drive home.

P.S. I was just thinking that it would have been a better movie if they would have had Harry Connick Jr. and Robert Downey Jr. playing brothers, one being Iron Man, the other maybe as Skillet Man or something like that.

88 Minutes

Matt turned me on to "Gone Baby Gone" a few weeks ago, and I thanked him for that. Why didn't someone warn me about "88 Minutes"? You know who you are, you went and saw this movie before me, heard I was planning on seeing it, and didn't warn me. I'm not sure exactly how I would have responded to that warning, but at least your conscience would be clear. There wasn't a level on which this movie wasn't bad. The setup, the characters, the music, Al Pacino's hair, the acting and worst of all the cell phones. They always tell us to turn off our phones in the theater, Al Pacino didn't get that memo. Who's idea was it to have Pacino on the phone for half the movie, and running from university building to university building the rest of the time. If you want to get some good cardiovascular excersise, just piss-off a seriel killer by putting him in prison. The main female character must have been reading off a tele-prompter, there's no other plausible explination for her delivery of dialouge. I was hoping ten minutes into the movie that somehow Pacino's presence would slightly redeem an already horrible movie, but alas this was not to be. I would have said before that Pacino is one of those actors who is aging gracefully and only accepting roles that play upon his strenghts. Based on this movie I would retract that thought, although I hesitate to say much more out of fear that Pacino really scares me and it wouldn't be good to get on his bad side. All this being said, I'm still really looking forward to seeing Pacino and DeNiro together again in "Righteous Kill", and to the brother who didn't warn me in advance, it's alright, nobody's perfect.

Shine A Light

Before I review this film I thought it would be appropriate explain my introduction and consequential relationship with the Rolling Stones. What may make this story more interesting is the notable absence of the Rolling Stones from my childhood. I grew up with The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, The Beach Boys and The Eagles. In high school I went a little further with The Doors, Creedence, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix. I may be leaving out some obvious names here, but in retrospect for me it's the Rolling Stones who should of been there. Had I heard any of their stuff? Sure, but it had never made a big enough impact to encourage me to explore any further. It wasn't until I was in my early to mid twenties that my boss bought the double CD "Forty Licks" and played it at work. Of course as is true with all "Greatest Hits" compilations this set doesn't capture the Stones completely, but it does show a side and a range I hadn't heard before. On top of that, my boss is a big Rolling Stones fan. I think he likes the Stones in the way I like The Beatles, and that's saying quite a bit. When you talk about and listen to music with someone who really loves it, it makes you see it in a different way. So later in life I came to appreciate and more than that, really like much of the Rolling Stones music. Sure I love some of their better known stuff; 'Paint it Black', 'Sympathy for the Devil', 'Brown Sugar' and 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'. But I really like some of the more obscure stuff; 'Shattered', 'A Fool To Cry', and 'Emotional Rescue'. What sucks is that I kind of feel like after discovering the Rolling Stones, it's all over. I've heard everything good ever made now and I'm never going to have that experience again. Rock and Roll isn't dead yet because Keith Richards, Ringo Starr, and Bob Dylan are still alive, but it'll be dead soon.

"Shine A Light" is every rock band's dream; Martin Scorsese directing a film about a concert starring a great band. I'm not sure how much of the film was staged (no pun intended), personally if Scorsese offered to film my life, I would give him full access and control, leaving nothing to chance. Scorsese suggests that the Stones wouldn't give him a song list of their concert until moments before they walked on stage. All that doesn't really matter, the final product is probably the greatest concert film ever. Sure Mick Jagger can't really sing his songs very well any more, and the songs in the movie aren't even the best they have to offer. But none of that matters either. The film is about capturing something for history. We get to see the last remaining Rock band together on stage, pouring out their hearts through their performances. It's not about Mick Jagger, it's not about the music, it's about the band and what they represent. Don't get me wrong, I haven't fallen blindly for what is mostly attractively packaged trash. The Rolling Stones have and always will stand for personal gratification and I admit that's bad. But they also embody freedom and charisma that are qualities to be admired. Scorsese likes the Stones for all that they represent, and it is clear in how he portrays them here. If you want to see one of the last real Rock-n-Roll movies ever made, "Shine A Light" is for you. If you're saying to yourself, "But isn't Creed rock too? then you might as well just stay home and watch some television.

Gone Baby Gone

First off I've got to give Matt credit for turning me on to this movie. I think that back when it was in the theaters I had opted to see "The Assassination of Jesse James by..." instead. My thought then probably was that seeing Casey Affleck in a movie would be alright, but Casey in a movie directed by his brother might be Affleck overload. I went to the wrong movie.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I saw "Jesse James" but just thinking about that movie almost puts me to sleep. Quite the opposite with "Gone Baby Gone". Over the course of the film there isn't a moment when we aren't wondering what just happened, what is going to happen next, or more importantly; what would we do in the same situation? I got to watch it with my friend Rob, and I would highly recommend that it should be viewed with someone who you can talk with afterwards. For me there were two stand-out questions raised, one of which was answered as I would have, and the other was a little bit tougher. Now there were a lot more than two questions raised, and what is interesting is how each answer or decision forced the film to take the next step. I liked that. Unfortunately for me to go into much detail about the questions would ruin the movie for those who have not seen it, so I'm going to finish up this review and in the next paragraph discuss those details. To close, the direction by Ben Affleck was right on, he captured the feel and emotion of the scenes very effectively. Casey Affleck got way more time here than in "Jesse James", and proves that he deserves to have leading roles where appropriate. My one problem was that towards the end the intracacy of the plot seemed a little too contrived, although I understood that it was neccesary to deal with the questions raised. The thing is that when I start understanding that something is a plot device it kind of takes away from the otherwise great storytelling. Of course for different people at different times this can work for or against a movie. "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" knows its a movie but I can get lost in it anyways. And I can't even think of "Gladiator" without intense irritation, so go figure.

Alright so here's what I think for Matt and anyone else who's seen the movie. I hope that without a moment of hesitation I would have taken that guy out upstairs like Casey Affleck did. The only difference is that I suspect I would have unloaded as opposed to the single shot. Now if that's wrong then I'm afraid in that moment I would just be doing something wrong, but I have a hard time seeing how I could live with any other reaction. That's the first question I refered to, the second is once Casey shows up at Morgan Freeman's doorstep, do I make the call or not? I don't think I could have, not after seeing the connection there and the contrast to her previous life. Perhaps there would be an appropriate course of action, but I just don't think I could have done what Casey did. At the same time, I loved how he stuck to his beliefs, and as the film closed he even took responsibility for his decision. Thanks Matt for the good film.

Nothing to see

It's been a while since I've gone to the theater, there's nothing worth seeing. The next movie I'm really looking forward to seeing is "Shine A Light", the Scorsese documentary about the Rolling Stones. Unfortunately that's still two weeks away, so I don't have anything new to write about. This has led me to watch more stuff at home over the the past two weeks, revisiting some old stand-bys and catching some stuff I've never seen before. Our public library is pretty good out here, so I have a good selection to choose from to fill in the gaps of my movie watching past-time. Here's some of what I have seen recently; "The Departed", I think this term is over-used, but this film really is an "instant classic". Twenty/fourty years from now when you want to watch a great film, "The Departed" will be an acceptable choice. "A Knights Tale", this film is fun, it's got charisma, and I just enjoy watching it. Of course it's different now that Heath Ledger is dead, maybe I'm feeling what eailier generations have felt when their young actors have died tragically. "Wimbledon", this was the first time I saw this movie, and it was also fun to watch. It's pretty much your typical, sweet, romantic comedy. What makes it stand out is that even though it deals with two professional tennis stars, overall it is down to earth in how they handle their lives. "Ratatouille", can I say "instant classic" again so soon? If you haven't seen this film yet then I don't know if we can be friends, there's really no excuse. Seriously, if yo have the electricity to be running your computer, then most likely you could figure out a way to see this great film. Each time I watch it I am further amazed by the depth, not just visually, but all aspects, from character developement, acting, sound, story, music, well you get the point. This film deserved to be noted in the Best Film category at the Oscars, that's how good it is. And finally this afternoon, on VHS I watched "The Age of Innocence". On one hand be sure to avoid viewing this film on a Sunday afternoon while lying on a couch, it is very challenging. On the other hand, it was very successful at completely capturing its subject. Daniel Day Lewis doesn't need to talk, and Scorsese knows how to make use of that fact. I was reminded of "Casablanca" where Rick has these feelings, emotions that are overwhelming. We as an audience see his point of view, even if we know morally that he would be wrong to follow through. Great films ask questions, and very rarely give us a clean answer. I was goin to say that they never give us an answer, but then I thought of "Braveheart" and had to change it up a little. "The Age Of Innocence" is kind of a nod to when movies like "Casablanca" were made. Things are left unsaid and undone. Sometimes this was because the standards of the time would not allow things to be said or done, but in the great films it was because the writers and directors understood the power of this technique. Scorsese has proven that he can work in the vernacular at hand. Sure his best has probably been the language and customs of gangsters, but with films like "The Age Of Innocence", "Gangs Of New York", ... what am I doing, this list could go on for a while, so goodnight.

Semi-Pro

Last week I talked about "Vantage Point's" trailer being better than the movie itself. This week I found that the funniest parts of "Semi-Pro" had been compacted into it's theatrical trailer. Actually the Bud Light commercial and the Old Spice spot were probably funnier per-capita than this movie, and that's too bad. When Jess and I went to se "Juno" a few weeks ago, we both were laughing out loud throughout the whole film. I hardly remember laughing at all last night, and the one time I remember was when Tim Meadows realized he had been shot. (As a side note; whenever Tim Meadows says something I laugh). Now I must admit that I didn't go into this movie as a big Will Ferrel, but even when I haven't liked the overall movie (like "Old School" "Anchorman" and "The Wedding Crashers") there's always been a hilarious, memorable sequence in each of his movies. This time it just wasn't the case.

Vantage Point and Charlie Wilson's War

First off I would like to say that "Vantage Point's" theatrical trailer was one of my favorite trailers in a long time. Really it was like a mini movie, providing plenty of entertainment in a short amount of time. But alas, the 90 minute movie fell far short of the mark, and if you have the choice I would recommend watching the theatrical trailer over the film itself. So many opportunities were squandered, and really the multiple perspective theme of the movie turned out to be merely a gimmick. I wanted a clever techno-thriller that took advantage of different points of view to build a compelling story. Instead I had to watch basically the same thing happen six or seven times from different camera angles. Maybe I should have known better, I guess it's just the optimist in me hoping beyond hope to see something new and fresh, well not in "Vantage Point" I'm afraid.

"Charlie Wilson's War" is over at the Dollarr Theater here in Colorado Springs, so I thought no matter what it would probably be worth the price of admission. Considering that some of the actors (including Phillip Seymour Hoffman) are nominated for Academy Awards tonight, I was hoping to nullify the effects of the shallowness of "Vantage Point". Sure the film has a left-leaning political bite to it, but then maybe it makes some good points too. The perfomances from Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and mostly Hoffman were very enjoyable, and it was well worth the price ($1.50 at our Dollar Theater). It didn't ever acheive any level of greatness and probably won't leave any lasting impressions with me, but it was fun to watch. Movies like this don't really bring anytthing new to the table. We all know that our government built-up the Osama Bin Ladens of the world in an effort to fight Communism. "Charlie Wilson's War" is an inside look at the motivations and personalities behind one of those 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions' pieces of history that we just can't seem to learn from.

Juno

I got to go see "Juno" with Jess last night, and we both really enjoyed it. You may remember that we saw "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" together back in October, and that's the last time we got to see a movie in the theater together. Our tastes in film can be very different, but when there is an overlap it makes the expereience so enjoyable. We laughed at many of the same scenes, felt compassion for certain caracters, and of course since we are married we disagreed here and there too. I would like to explain what made this film so good, perhaps even great, but it's not a simple thing to do. "Juno" had depth. Not just layers of writing, or allusion to something that may or may not be there, but true depth. What first tipped me off was early on in the film when Juno (the main character of course) enters an abortion clinic fully intending to have an abortion. Outside she was met by a classmate who is picketing the clinic. There is a short exchange in which the classmate informs her that her baby probably already has hair, a heartbeat and fingernails. Juno has seen the bumper-stickers and picket signs before and continues into the clinic. Once inside she seems to have a tendency to notice all the little details that make us uncomfortable in any clinical enviornment, and she soon leaves, with he baby intact. What's great about the shot is that we get to see her noticing women tapping their fingernails, painting their fingernails, etc. Did her baby's fingernails save it's life? I don't think the movie is so simple as to suggest that, merely it points out that it can be those seemingly insignificant statements, or little details that add up in making us who we are, and help determine the choices we make and the way we approach life.
There a have been quite a few movies made, especially since this low-budget independent film craze began, that attempt to make comedies centered on realistic situations. What seperates "Juno" from what is mostly crap, is that it has real people, dealing realistically with realistic situations, and it's really funny.

Jumper

If I could teleport, I wouldn't have to write about this movie, I could just come discuss it with each of you, and then be back home in time for dinner. Of course I probably would have been tempted to teleport to watch "No Country For Old Men" again for a while, then over to Carl's Jr. for some waffle fries, then to Hawaii for a little attempt at surfing, then back to the movie theater to quietly and respctfully sit through the closing credits before teleporting back home to get a good night's rest. The filmmakers here bite off a little more than they can chew. So far we've seen teleporters in "X-Men" 2 and "The Matrix Reloaded", which used the technique to enhance the action of their respective movies. Here we follow the life of a teleporter and what seems to be an idea full of possibilities turns out to be rather boring. Now I'm not saying it wasn't fun to watch, it's just that there is so much more that could be done with this idea, and here they only scratched the surface. I want ot see a movie where the teleporter truly struggles with the slow pace of life around him. Perhaps a cultural comparison could be made between teleporters and modern technology like cell phones and the interent. Are we really saving time or making life easier with these inventions?
Even with the fact that my imagination surpasses what "Jumper" delivered, I should say that Anikan did a good job with the material, and the chemistry and visual style were entertaining, making this a fun movie, maybe its best quality is that it can spark ideas and conversations.

Rambo and There Will Be Blood

Rob and I were at an impasse on Friday night. We knew that this would be our one chance to see a movie together on the weekend, but he wanted to see "Rambo" and I was set on "There Will Be Blood". So we compromised and saw them both. At 7:45 it was Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo". Stallone directs and stars in this version, and like his most recent take on "Rocky" this was obviously an effort to revisit the character with a focus on purpose. I have a lot of respect for Stallone, recognizing that his earlier portrayals tended to slide towards mindless entertainment in a medium that so easily can be used for good. Now the "Rambo" message is simple; if you're going to go into the jungle and kill a bunch of people with knives, explosives, bows (arrows) and your bare hands, it might as well be for a good cause. So Stallone sets up his film in Burma, where the government is savagely murdering it's own people. Then he adds in a dash of Christian missionaries, in case we couldn't quite relate with the locals. Now we're ready for the action... As the end credits rolled, I told Rob that this movie should have been titled "There Will Be Blood". It was bloody. Now, since this is a "Rambo" movie, that was to be expected, and in a way it was good to see a true action movie after all this pseudo-action, techno, sensitive-male, mindless, unoriginal dribble Hollywood has been putting out since "The Matrix" changed everything. At the same time, the mixture of shocking us with the brutal reality of an evil government rule, with 80's style over-the-top stylized action violence kind of was unsettling to me. Sure I wanted to see the bad guys get what the deserved, and John Rambo dished it out nicely, but maybe this would have been better as two separate movies. So in conclusion, I thought it was a great action film, but maybe Rambo isn't the best person to send in to help spread good in foreign countries. "Rambo" ended at 9:40, and we had five minutes before the lights went down and previews started rolling at the 9;45 showing of "There Will Be Blood". I was a good thing I did my homework and both of these movies were at the same theater. Where should I begin with a film like "There Will Be Blood"? Obviously the title is a great one. Is it a warning or a promise? Then there's Daniel Day Lewis. Is it possible to be disappointed by one of his performances? I tried to avoid any information about this film before I went in, so it was very unexpected from start to finish. Ralph Fiennes plays a monster in "Schindler's List". He does things and orders things done that are beyond comprehension in their wickedness. He is a monster that we can't relate to. In this film Daniel Day Lewis plays a character who is even scarier, because we see it from his perspective, and it touches a little too close to home. This man is selfish to his core, his heart is black. Yet he knows what's right, he knows how to be a good father, and how to talk to people. I've never hated a character in film as much. Yet it was captivating to watch. He was such a smooth, manipulative talker, and he only spoke when it was to his benefit. The first twenty minutes of the film he doesn't say a word, there's no advantage for him to. His son adores him, and he adores his son. Does he adore his son because of his son's adoration? Does he love his son, or is it just nice to have someone around who loves you? In the final scene with his son I believe his true heart is revealed, which made me hate him even more. Then there's the town's young, charismatic pastor (played by Paul Dano). He is the antagonist to Lewis' character, and what a way to compare and contrast two characters! Paul Thomas Anderson's probably has good reason for in using and oil man and a pastor to represent American greed. Personally I thought it was a great film, yet I sense a jab at Christianity that is not representative of my faith. Yet from an outside perspective the comparison that Anderson makes is justified, and I find that to be sad.

Heath Ledger

I would like to say a word about Heath Ledger. Ever since I saw him in "10 Things I Hate About You" I have liked him and appreciated his work. He played a wide variety of roles, and belongs in the same category as the great actors of our time. It is sad to hear of anyone dying young, and maybe because I liked him, and because of my anticipation for his upcoming films, I have been saddened to hear of his passing. Perhaps this is a good time to pray for his family, and for other young actors and actresses. Obviously these people have an impact on society, and it is not beyond hope that God can use them for his glory.

Cloverfield

The primary reason I went to this movie was to see for myself what "it" was before someone spoiled it for me. Now this doesn't get me into all movies, I don't go see any of those horror or slasher type films, but there was something about "Cloverfield's" ad campaign that worked on me. Hopefully if you plan on seeing this film you are smart enough not to read any further because it is impossible to really discuss this film without giving away some important details... The best aspect of this film was how from start to finish our only perspective was from one hand-held camera. Some films have attempted this feel, some have used it as a gimmick, but "Cloverfield" used it convincingly as a storytelling device. Of course you will question how realistic it would be that one person would have so many incidents occur to him in one night, and conveniently he had the camera running the whole time without the battery running out. But then with so many cameras running on any given night of course we would watch the most interesting footage. This film took your typical Godzilla monster movie and told it from a ground level point of view. It did this with convincing, unrecognizable actors who were interesting to spend the time with. The special effects worked well,and were probably most effective considering we only could see them through the lens of a small hand-held digital camera. Usually we would feel jipped if we didn't get clear steady shots of what is going on and what is doing it. But in the context of this film (as in "The Blair Witch Project") there is an explination, and it's actually more scary because we know that's how it would feel to us if we were there too. In closing, there were two things that stuck out that did bother me. First, if you go ito a store, break open a battery package and put it in you phone, won't you have to charge it before you can use it? Also, I think in this kind of film it would have been better to leave some things unseen. Usually what is left to our imagination is far scarier than anything digital artists can create.

Atonement

Atonement has everything that a great film needs , except for the most important element; sympathetic characters. Wouldn't you think that in a tragic love story there should at least be a man and a woman who are in love?

Here is what is good about the film; it is beautiful, and filmed with rich detail. The feel of the film matches the look, creating mystery, tension and anger. The music, piano mostly contributed to the atmosphere without being distracting, actually being incorporated into the film as some of the characters actually play notes on the piano where appropriate. There is one sympathetic character, actually the antagonist is the only character I cared about in the end.

Here is why the film fell so flat that I was actually blown away at how dissapointed I was; everything was without purpose. Almost so much that it could have been used as an inetersting twist. But alas, this film turned out to be a mediocre mishmash of other far better films. James Cameron should get a cut of this film since there is an obvious rip-off of the old lady explaining what happened a long time ago scene. I almost expected Leonardo to come from off screen and give her a kiss. And here's the scene that epitomizes the whole film; as James McAvoy's character walks onto the beach in France, we a treated to a continuous shot that must last about five minutes. The scene shows chaos as Allied troops prepare to retreat, fighting each other, killing horses, destroying equipment, etc. The scene was impressive from a technical standpoint, and reminded me of the bridge at night scene from "Apocalypse Now". The difference is that Coppola's scene contributed to the film and was brilliant, whereas this beach scene in "Atonement" was impressive yet unnecessary, kind of like the whole movie.