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.