Peter D Crum: The Humble Blog Ninja

The Shawshank Redemption

2012-02-01T21:36:00.000-08:00

I was watching "The Shawshank Redemption" with my wife Jess earlier this evening. Something stood out which I hadn't really focused on in previous viewings. The prison warden, who is the protagonist of the film, is characterized as the worst kind of hypocrite. He openly proclaims his Christianity, even carrying a Bible throughout the movie, yet his actions suggest a sadistic thirst for power. His tongue is smooth as silk; he quotes scripture, preaching salvation, but within the context of his character everything he says seems profane. This inspired me to make the following observation: Some people intentionally soften their language so as to be gentle and unoffensive. Others purposefully choose words that are meant to illicit anger and dissent. Most are guilty of giving little thought to what they say; an injury unintended still causes pain. Then there are the dwindling few who speak truth, unabashedly... lovingly. It's not necessarily the word itself that matters, rather the spirit behind what is said.

An aside

2012-01-07T15:27:00.000-08:00

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” (George
Santayana).

The process of choosing a Republican Presidential candidate is an important one. In this new year I will continue to post movie reviews here on my blog ("War Horse" is coming soon), but I thought it fitting to post some other projects I've been working on too. Over a year ago I wrote a paper about Winston Churchill, and I think it touches upon some important points that should be considered when deciding who our next leader will be.

Read Paper Here.

We Bought A Zoo and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

2011-12-26T15:51:00.000-08:00

On Christmas Eve we went as a family to see "We Bought A Zoo" at the movie theater in downtown Colorado Springs. It was wonderful to see a Cameron Crowe film as a family, considering that previous Crowe films have definitely been intended for mature audiences. While "We Bought A Zoo" deals with some pretty heavy issues, I was impressed with Crowe's ability to gently handle ideas which a lesser director would have exploited for emotional effect. The film centers around a man who has lost his wife and his two children (who lost their mother). Instead of dwelling on the past, Crowe focuses on the daily challenges of life. I think that it must have been very tempting to incorporate flashbacks into a movie like this, so that we the audience could understand how wonderful life was before the wife/mother was lost. Instead Crowe introduces us to characters who have already begun the process of life without their loved one. Of course the film still is quite sad, as each person struggles with this new life, but ultimately they are supporting each other. The run-down zoo which is attached to the family's new home works as an allegory for their life and it is also just what it seems; a zoo. This was a smart move for Crowe, I think he understands that a good film should entertain it's audience, and be substantive to boot. Even if children don't understand the deeper meaning upon their first viewing, it will be there when they return. I think that my favorite movies from childhood have turned out to be the great films which have gotten better as I am able to understand them more.

I didn't take the family to see "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", and I don't think any of them will be seeing it for quite some time. I had seen the original film version, which really was sufficient, but I really wanted to see how David Fincher would treat the same material. Honestly the first film could easily have been directed by Fincher, so he definitely had to out-do himself to leave no doubt that this was really his movie. The opening titles reminded me of the opening to "Fight Club", it really grabs your attention and sets the atmosphere for the film to follow. Throughout the film there are moments and techniques utilized which definitely made the film uniquely Fincher, but overall I was surprised with how similar it was to the original version. Of course Fincher's best films ("Fight Club" and "Seven") are best the first time you watch them, so here he was already at a disadvantage. The moments of greatest tension, or that are meant to shock were the same exact moments from the previous version. When I think of "Fight Club" I always think about the first time I saw it, the visceral experience that was burned into my mind; this movie fell far short of that. This film was billed as "the feel bad movie of the holidays", to which it totally delivers... And yet, Fincher's nihilism, which somehow worked to his benefit in some of his other films somehow feels like too much here. "Seven" is about men who confront evil for which they are unprepared. That film at least forces the audience to ask themselves what would they do if faced with the same dilemma. The closing moment of the film solidifies the main character's belief that she is and always will be utterly alone. If this review has bummed you out, I'm sorry, I didn't force anyone to read it. You should have stopped with "We Bought A Zoo".

Mission Impossible 4

2011-12-22T08:43:00.000-08:00

What I like the most about the Mission Impossible film series is the variety. With the fourth installment we get the fourth director, the result of which is an entirely new movie. These films don't fit the standard sequel mould; rather it's a completely different experience each time. Of course this can be risky, since there isn't much continuity between the films. Personally I believe that Brian De Palma's work on the first film remains the best. The action sequences are memorable, but more importantly the twists and turns within the plot make it a very entertaining ride. John Woo brought his stylized action to the second movie, going way over the top; which was fun. J.J. Abrams directed the third film, essentially making a big budget episode of Alias with the added bonus of drones, wind turbines, and lens flares (I'm not saying any of that is a bad thing).

Here in the fourth movie, Brad Bird makes a live-action version of "The Incredibles". If that doesn't sound totally awesome to you, then I suggest that you get a check-up immediately. As with the last two movies, story and plot is of little importance, it merely serves as the thread to tie one set-piece to another. In a sense I was somewhat disappointed, considering that Brad Bird directed "Ratatouille" and "Iron Giant", he has proven his ability to bring substance to film. Yet the visuals and action in this movie are so captivating that I forgave him right away for the shallow story. There is absolutely no reason to describe the three main action sequences; yet I will comment on the third which would be right at home in any good Pixar film (minus the blood and broken bones of course). While watching this amazingly choreographed scene I became aware of something interesting; the camera is a hindrance. In "The Incredibles", "Iron Giant", and "Ratatouille" there are no limits to what Brad Bird can do. In the real world Bird is constrained by the limits of the camera, which made certain shots seem somewhat static. While I hope to never see digital animation replace live-action, it's exciting to see the marriage of the two, and watch the evolution which is taking place in filmmaking. Hopefully Hollywood will get the message that we don't want Jar Jar Binks, but we do want a hovering camera capturing Tom Cruise climbing the tallest building in the world without ropes.

Catching-Up

2011-10-02T15:12:00.000-07:00

It's been too long since my last post, and even longer since I reviewed a new movie.
My school schedule has led to a reduction in movie-going, but not as drastically as reflected on this blog. This posting will be devoted to short (two or three sentence) reviews of the movies I saw but never took time to fully review. Next time I hope to return to the full review format.

"Captain America" had its moments. In my opinion there are film adaptations of comic books which rise above their source material (example: "Superman" and "The Dark Knight"). Other movies are basically video comic books themselves, which is the category in which "Captain America" finds itself. These can only be judged against each other, as they lack certain elements which good films must contain. Therefore, "Captain America" is better than "Thor", "Fantastic 4", "Daredevil" etc. But that's not really saying much.

"Cowboys and Aliens" contained actors who pretended that they were in a far better movie than I got to see. I had heard how excited Harrison Ford was to be in a Western, and he played his part with plenty of charisma. Daniel Craig seems to play the reluctant hero so naturally, and he was just right for this role. Unfortunately the overall movie didn't measure up... "Alien" (way back in 1979) set a pretty high standard for what a scary alien should look like. Movies like "I Am Legend" have proven that Hollywood can digitally make creatures which are imposing and effective antagonists. It appears as though the makers of "Cowboys and Aliens" have been living in a cave for the last 32 years, because their aliens are neither imposing or effective. If this movie had stuck to cowboys and forgotten about the aliens it would have been a far better movie.

"Midnight In Paris" has Owen Wilson playing a younger Woody Allen in a Woody Allen movie. There is a dreamlike quality to this film which I don't think Woody Allen has done before, which was very well done. While I really enjoy Woody Allen's dialogue and sense of humor, it was helpful to have something different going on to keep it fresh and interesting. Out of all the movies I'm discussing in this post, "Midnight In Paris" is the only one I have any desire to see again.

"The Debt" was good up until the last 5 minutes; too bad. I recommend that the writer and director of "The Debt" watch the next movie I review here, "Drive" in preparation for their next movie. If you don't know how to end a good story, just stop. A movie is better off without an ending than with one so cliche and unnecessary as we're given in "The Debt". On a side note, one thing I'd like to point out about "The Debt" is the double-back storytelling element it utilizes. While many films use this device to build tension, "The Debt" uses it for another purpose... I was happily surprised by the affect.

"Drive" is one of those movies which tests Quentin Tarantino's theory on effective violence. Graphic violence has less impact than implied violence. What makes the main character in this film so scary is how quiet and calm he is. While ultimately the hero of this film is a tragic one, it is nice to see a film take the time to explain who the hero is and why, without offending the audience. The supporting characters in this film are also well defined (as much as necessary) which made this one of the better films I've seen recently.

"Killer Elite" reminds me why I like Robert De Niro. His scenes are better just because he's in them, as is the movie as a whole. Otherwise this was basically a standard action thriller, doing the action well, not really delivering on the thriller elements. Now that I think of it, another viewing of "Heat" probably would have been a better way to pass the time. Here's the dilemma; while there's almost always a better movie than the one I just saw, does watching the sub-par movies make me appreciate the great ones even more? Or do I just become more and more jaded? It's a catch-22.

The Philosophy of Casablanca

2011-08-04T02:19:00.000-07:00

Michael Curtiz’s 1942 film Casablanca is about a man whose philosophical outlook has become jaded. Humphrey Bogart plays Rick, a nightclub owner with a mysterious past. The backdrop is Casablanca, a city which is the debarkation point from which people from all over the world are hoping to escape the Nazi onslaught. Tension is thick at the nightclub, Rick’s Café American, as people from diverse backgrounds clash in an attempt to make sense out of the insanity of war. Amidst this confusion, the film centers on Rick, whose philosophy seems to be “I stick my neck out for no one”. As the film opens Rick is visited by a seedy character named Ugarte, who asks Rick to hide some valuable documents for him. The authorities arrive to arrest Ugarte who runs to Rick asking for help, Rick refuses. While hiding the documents had been beneficial to Rick, helping Ugarte would have only put him at risk. This is reminiscent of philosopher Immanuel Kant’s view that knowledge comes from one’s senses and understanding. Rick’s universe is centered on himself; he views outside people and events only as they affect him.
While at first glance Rick appears to be an extremely narcissistic individual, certain statements reveal that this may simply be a defensive facade. Ferrari, a wealthy businessman offers to buy Rick’s nightclub, Rick refuses. Then, referring to the piano player, Ferrari asks, “How much do you want for Sam?” Rick dismisses him by saying, "I don't buy or sell human beings". This exchange reveals a moral code which suggests that Rick, while self-centered, is not entirely without principles.
Enter the woman who broke Rick’s heart, Ilsa Lund. From a philosophical standpoint, Ilsa represents the experiences of Rick’s past, which have shaped his current character. It may be helpful to look at the relationship between Rick and Ilsa through the lens of John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In this essay Locke discusses the properties of reality, separating truth from perception. Locke claims that there are real, tangible truths, but that an effort to describe these truths from an individual perspective is futile. Rick believes that Ilsa callously broke off their relationship years earlier, but this was far from the truth. Ilsa’s husband who had been reported dead, returned, making it impossible for her to stay with Rick. Believing that Ilsa no longer loved him, Rick adopted a hard exterior and a pessimistic worldview. Obviously Rick’s reaction was based on his limited senses and understanding, which highlights the shortcoming of the previously mentioned Kantian philosophy.
Prior to learning Ilsa’s side of the story, Rick’s behavior towards her reflects only his own feelings, it is clear that he believes himself to be the victim. Her husband, Victor turns out to be an important freedom fighter who is seeking to escape with her to America. The documents which Rick acquired at the beginning of the film are essential to the success of Ilsa and Victor’s plan. Although helping Victor would save many lives and thwart evil Nazi schemes, Rick doesn’t want to help the woman who left him or the man she is now with. It is at this crucial point in the film when Ilsa is finally able to explain why she had to leave. In Rick’s mind, a significant transformation takes place, no longer is he looking at the world simply from his own perspective. As he gives Ilsa the documents, Rick says, “I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”. In the end Rick sends Ilsa off with Victor, risking his own safety in the process. Apparently Rick is willing to stick his neck out for others, which is quite uplifting, because who wants to see a movie about a guy who only cares for himself?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

2011-07-16T21:39:00.000-07:00

In order to give justice to a good movie, and out of consideration for you, I will divide this review into two parts... which probably is as good an idea as dividing the final Harry Potter book into two parts.

*If you love Harry Potter enough that you already saw this movie, and you cried at the end, you may not want to read any further.

Part I: What Did Not Work.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows probably would have made an excellent film, instead it has been divided into two OK movies. Optimistic Peter acknowledges that this was probably done to make Harry Potter fans happy, two movies means twice the Harry Potter goodness. Realist Peter steps in and slaps Optimistic Peter upside the head and reminds him that "it's the money stupid!" Of course neither Peter is here to criticize good old fashioned Capitalism, obviously Peter bought tickets to both movies. The point is that good filmmaking is the process of eliminating all the elements which are unnecessary to telling a story, leaving behind only a great film. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is chock full of fat and fillers, and that excess is punctuated with an absence of music. That's right, the composer of this movie's score seems to have only written music for parts which he deemed "music worthy" and left long sections of silence here and there. As the closing titles rolled I noticed that a number of pieces were actually John William's compositions (he's not the composer this time), so this movie's composer actually did less writing than is represented in the soundtrack. Of course a discussion of the movie's score is meant only give an example of how this movie is lacking. There is not enough story and no character development to speak of, which makes this entry in the Harry Potter series only good as a bookend. Which is unfortunate, because at the other end of the Harry Potter library is one of the two best Potter movies. This magical series started out so promising and just didn't have enough depth or heart to make it to the finish line.

Part II: What Did Work
There are two things which this episode of Harry Potter did well, one of which it did amazingly. Firstly, it ended the story. Perhaps I was meant to be surprised, but overall I found the conclusion of this series to follow exactly the course that had been established quite a while ago. Everyone wins, loses, hooks-up, dies, lives, etc. just as anyone might have expected. Perhaps I'm a little slow, but is Professor Snape Harry's dad? Whether or not this is true, I kind of like the way they handled that story element, Potter's flashback into Snape's memory was one of the best parts of the movie. The second, and best part of this movie are the special effects. It is truly amazing to see the evolution which has taken place in this series alone. If you're going to pay to see this movie you'll get your money's worth in eye candy. The dragon, the smoke/flying evil wizards, fire, and Ralph Fienne's nose are all spectacular visual achievements.

Conclusion:
I am glad that we got to see the final chapter in the Harry Potter series, it's good to have closure. Yet it's kind of a bummer to see these movies end on a dismal note. The truth is that Harry Potter was never much of a hero, and I can't say these stories ever rose above the visual escape that they provided. My friend Rob made a good point; "compare Dumbledore to Gandalf"... end of argument.

Soul Surfer, Kung Fu Panda 2, Monte Carlo, and Transformers 3

2011-07-07T07:20:00.000-07:00

Let's get "Transformers 3" out of the way first. I didn't go into this movie expecting character development or a good story; I wasn't disappointed. This movie contains none of the elements which are typically needed for even the most basic of movies, yet it does have Transformers, so at least that's something. I'll admit that there were a few funny moments, but why in the world did I feel like I was watching a watered-down "Hangover" rip-off? I'll tell you why, because one of the characters is from "The Hangover" playing the exact same character, ripping-off his previous performance. This may have been fun if done right, but it was so out of place, and it didn't fit into the context of the rest of the movie. Usually I'm OK with Michael Bay's mish mash style, but this movie was such a jumbled mess I don't think I could actually recount for you what or why anything happened. Transformers are awesome, but what is up with those stupid mini Transformer clown characters? Perhaps Michael Bay did some market research and found that Americans secretly loved Jar Jar Binks. Maybe I'm alone on this, but these mini Transformers are so irritating that they seriously detract from the whole movie. Ultimately, this film was a spectacle, an experience more than a movie. If you're waiting to watch this on a television you're a moron. Pay the ten bucks, see Transformers beating the crap out of each other, then never watch this movie again.

"Kung Fu Pand 2" wasn't half the movie the first one was. Too bad. Once again we have concrete evidence that story, writing, and characters are the foundation of a good film; if any one of these elements is weak, the whole movie fails. "Kung Fu Panda" gave us the characters; unfortunately, like so many sequels, the story here was so flat that the movie is really only good for napping. It's too bad that the creators of this movie thought that action, fighting animals, and explosions were all the audience wanted. Too bad.

I got to see the movie "Monte Carlo" with my daughter Ashley. This movie was really well done, sure nothing really new as a story, but then sometimes the best movies are simply re-tellings of the greatest stories. The kids and I sometimes watch Wizards of Waverly Place, which also stars Salena Gomez, and she basically plays a nicer version of that character here in "Monte Carlo". The movie probably would have been flat if it had merely followed her, impersonating a famous celebrity, taking advantage of the benefits of fame. Fortunately she has a step sister and best friend along for the ride, who really are more interesting than she is, and the movie ended up being dynamic and fun because of the other characters and their side stories. This is at its heart a Fairy Tale, and it does contain the appropriate moral lessons which are conveyed in a down to earth, heartwarming way. I can think of quite a few teenager/tween movies of late that have horrible messages and terrible role models, it's nice that "Monte Carlo" breaks that mould.

Thomas, the kids, and I saw "Soul Surfer" a little while ago (when Thomas was here of course). This is the best out the four movies I'm reviewing this time, which I am happy to report. Sure there are hints of preachiness in this film, which isn't always a bad thing, but delivery is so important. Unfortunately the filmmakers chose to cast Carrie Underwood to have the preachy role, and she was not meant to act. Other than that minor complaint, the rest of the film was very well done. The story was quite compelling, and this was coupled with a main character who really made the whole thing convincing. AnnaSophia Robb was wonderful in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and has grown up just enough to be perfect as the surfer girl who struggles with life after a shark attack. Even with a strong supporting cast (with the exception of Underwood) Robb really must carry this movie herself. She displays a wide range of emotions, and is one of the better role models in recent movie history. It's also interesting to note that this movie is rated PG; and considering that there is a limb lost to a shark the filmmakers did a great job conveying the significance of that moment without graphically exploiting the horror. This is a rare thing today, a great family film.

Super 8

2011-06-12T12:15:00.001-07:00

"Super 8" is not a great creature film, but who wants to see that anyways. It is a wonderful film, that just so happens to have a creature moving about within its story. I don't want to give too much away, but this is basically a retelling of "E.T.", with two noteworthy exceptions. The first, and most important is that here the story is centered around a relationship between a boy and a girl, whereas "E.T." was focused on the boy and an alien. I liked the writing in this film; there are a group of kids making their own movie and each of their experiences are mirrored in the film that we are watching. For any film to be successful it must first make us sympathetic to the characters that we are watching. There are shortcuts which many filmmakers depend upon which result in very shallow movies. Some movie makers have given up entirely on character development, which is really a shame. Fortunately J.J. Abrams knows that the people are what make the film. The creature in this film represents the action, the danger looming in the background. What keeps us watching is the relationship between the boy and the girl. We want them to succeed, we want them to live happily ever after, but will they? Oh, and the second difference between "Super 8" and "E.T." is that ET never ate anybody, at least not onscreen.

On a side note; I really liked the look of this film. Abrams captured the feel of 1979 without it coming across as cheesy. When Spielberg made "E.T." it was shot to as a modern film, reflecting the look of 1982. In "Super 8" Abrams has revisited that time period, but it looks just as natural as Spielberg's film. This is how a good film transports you to another time without distracting from the story.

Catchup. "Thor", "Fast Five", "Rango", a bad sequel, and "Pirates of the Caribbean Part 4"

2011-05-27T23:58:00.000-07:00

I'm torn because it's late and my first instinct is to write really short reviews like; "Thor" sucked.

My journalistic integrity (or whatever it might be) implores me to at the very least explain myself; "Thor" sucked because it was all window dressing, it lacked soul, or perhaps a Biblical analogy would be it was a whitewashed tomb.

Perhaps that's a little excessive, but it gets to the point and hopefully steers anyone reading this from even renting this movie in the future. If I had to rate these movies I am reviewing tonight, "Thor" would definitely be the second to last movie that I would recommend. Check that, it would be one of two movies that I would not recommend ever due to the fact that it would be next to impossible to convince me that there was any redeemable value in watching this movie. I bet most of you are thinking "what a dork, why'd he even go see such a stupid movie?" Good question, my only answer is that I did it for you, kind of like taking a bullet for someone you love.

"Fast Five" was actually fun.

Yes, that was the review.

"Rango" was a highly entertaining experience, yet I was dissapointed with the overall message of the movie. The animation and character developement here was wonderful. The filmmakers were not aiming low to reach children, rather they made a rich and interesting film that will appeal to anyone who enjoys a good movie. I especially liked the "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", "Apocalypse Now" and "Singing in the Rain" references. Johnny Depp never felt like just Rango's voice, rather this animated lizard was another great Depp performance, which speaks highly of the animators and director, Gore Verbinski. Unfortunately the movie falters in its bleak worldview. Sure the main character, Rango is a hero, yet he is operating in a world where only personal gain matters. Heroes and villans are only seperated by how much they are willing to hurt those around them in pusuit of their desires. I was thinking earlier this evening about how important a director can be to the tone and spirit of a film. Look at the last two James Bond movies for example; by all accounts Daniel Craig's second outing as Bond should have been so much more, but the change in directors between the films caused a major discrepency. I suggest that you look at Gore Verbinski's earlier films, and it will become clear why "Rango" is a great film with a very empty outlook on humanity.

Oh yeah, and that is actually one of the movies I would recommend.

It's the "bad sequel" which I won't even mention by name that I would highly suggest that any and all avoid. I'm guessing that I've already said too much and most people who wanted to see this movie already have, so they too know why I'm raving against it, and those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about have no desire to see this movie anyways, so really, what's the point?

Moving on to the final film of the night; Jess and I just got back from seeing the newest "Pirates of the Caribbean". I really enjoyed it, I found it to be a great improvement on the last two installments. I don't want to get into all the reasons I disliked parts 2 and 3 (Keira Knightley) rather I would like to focus on what made part 4 enjoyable. Captain Jack is a wonderfully created character, and this movie spends most of its time with him. I never could really get interested in all the side stories and the political wrangling that went on in the previous films. Maybe when you have too many poplular actors in a movie it becomes necassary to give them something to do. What this film got right was letting us see how Depp's Captain Jack interacts with those other characters. There is a special chemistry between Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa and Jack, which director Rob Marshall takes full advantage of. There's enough here to make the journey back to the glory days of pirates seem worthwhile, without being bogged-down by the part 2/part 3 stroyline or the overpaid/undertalented actors that were so distracting in earlier outings.

Look, I actually reviewed 2 out of 5. That's got to count for something.

Hanna

2011-04-14T16:02:00.000-07:00

You may remember the last time I wrote about one of director Joe Wright's movies was after seeing "Atonement". To summarize that review, it sucked. I am happy to report that my impression of "Hanna" is significantly different. The best parts of the film come early, as we see Hanna at home with her father. There is a depth and affection in their relationship that is almost startling because you see that kind of love so rarely depicted in film. What is nice about the opening minutes is that the Wright allows the audience to take everything in. From the relationship between Hanna and her father to the rich cinematography which establishes where they live. Soon we are introduced to the plot, and at times we feel its pull and those are the weak momemets in the film. Yet for the most part the film is suprisingly thoughtful and never feels like its rushing from one action scene to another. Instead it is about a girl and her father and the devolopement of other relationships beyond her experience. I liked very much the sense of disorientation that the cinematographer and editor was able to convey. How often do we see a landscape and think "that looks just like Southern California" only to have a subtitle explain that we are actually in Iraq. This film lets you figure out where you are on your own, just like Hanna, and sometimes the clues aren't very helpful. I probably should mention that Rob and I had a debate over whether or not the film was promoting lesbians, and I'll admit to you that I was stretching it by suggesting that it was not. The movie also has a bunch of murder and stuff like that in it, but you probably don't mind that so much.

Searching for Bobby Fischer and Sucker Punch

2011-04-14T15:02:00.000-07:00

"Searching for Bobby Fischer" is one of those films that is a refreshing breath of fresh air every time I come back to it. I think that most great films are allegories. Even those based on historic events such as"Schindler's List" or set in a harsh real world like "The Departed" are not meant to be viewed only for the story contained within. Written between the lines is a commentary on contemporary society and the human condition. "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is not an allegory, rather it is about people searching for meaning without the clever assistance of some benevolent screenwriter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking "Schindler's List", yet let us look at a difference between these two films. In "Schindler's List" the Ben Kingsley character is able to help his fellow Jews by compiling a list which represents those who will be saved from death. This scene is carefully crafted for maximum emotional impact, contrasting the horrific impersonal slaughter that the Nazis carried out versus the heart wrenching choices that one man made to try to save those he loved. On the other hand in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" the Ben Kingsley character, a skilled Chess master loses his patience, taking out his frustration on a little boy who himself is struggling with emotional conflict. Every scene in "Schindler's List" means something, whereas "Searching for Bobby Fischer" seems to be at a loss, what was clear minutes before suddenly is no longer applicable. Yet the latter film more accurately represents how we live our lives. Even if your world view is firmly established, there will be many challenges in your life. "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is a breath of fresh air because it challenges me to look for purpose and what is good in the life that God has given me. Winning Chess won't bring meaning, not even just playing Chess can do that.

After writing about "Searching for Bobby Fischer" I feel less inclined to go into great detail on "Sucker Punch". I will briefly summarize my opinion of the movie and make a related observation. I liked the movie, it is one of those movies that is entertaining to experience but doesn't contain much in the way of substance. Once it's over, it's over. I'm a sucker for a good music video, and this was a series of music videos loosely tied together as a feature film. I really like "A Knight's Tale" which is somewhat similar, except at least that movie had a story to hold the whole thing together. Now maybe I'm alone on this one, but any movie that has action sequences set to Björk has got to be good. The observation I mentioned before has to do with film as art. I have heard it said that movies are the only truly American artform, and I tend to agree with this idea. Where this relates to "Sucker Punch" and movies like it is in how we appreciate them. This movie had shallow characters, a contrived plot which I hesitate to even call a story, yet it was viscerally amazing. There is one scene in particular that stands out where the camera completes a 360 degree pan around the main characters. To accomplish this it must go in and then out of a mirror, or did it start in and return to the mirror? Would it have been a far better film if it's visuals had achieved a higher purpose? Maybe just the fact that I'm asking whether or not it was art is itself the answer... Go figure that one out.

The Adjustment Bureau and Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2

2011-03-28T21:59:00.000-07:00

This and the next post are catch-up reviews, so don't think that I just saw four movies in the last couple days. I saw "The Adjustment Bureau about two weeks ago, but I still wanted to write about it today. Let me throw in the little fact that Jess and I have also watched the three "Bourne" movies and the three "Oceans" movies since I saw "The Bureau" so that will color my review as well. Matt Damon is a convincing young senator in this his most recent film. There were definitely allusions to President Obama's rise to power, which makes the film seem realistic and current. As you most likely already know from the trailers, Damon's character learns that there is a group of behind-the-scene workers, tasked with the keeping all humanity on their predetermined path. Damon's senator doesn't like that he can't be with the girl he loves, and decides to fight this control over his life. Of course the film is meant to spark questions about Free Will versus Predestination. The is an interesting question buried within this screenplay; is the daily struggle with choices that people have part of the plan? Unfortunately the movie is content to present these ideas merely as motivation for the plot and the action that takes place. There's no concern over how certain decisions may effect others, rather the Damon character seems bent on going after what he wants. His motivation borders on obsession, ultimately he is very selfish. This movie misses two important points: One, if you're really destined to do (or not do) something it is not physically possible to avoid that fate, the overseeing guardians in this movie barely have any real influence. Secondly, great men and women throughout history were those willing to sacrifice personal pleasure and comforts for a higher purpose. The people who made this movie should watch "Braveheart" and "12 Monkeys", then they might have a basic understanding on what would make a good movie...

It's been over two weeks since I began the review above, which means that my initial impression of these movies have faded and this review is bound to be affected by that fact. Yet surprisingly my memories of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2" a quite favorable. My kids all like the Wimpy Kids books and enjoy watching the first movie on DVD. I think the best way for me to judge this kind of movie is by recalling how much it made me laugh. I found it to be very funny, and as is often the case was laughing more than anyone else in the theater. I think that I have mentioned it before, but please humor me and hear my theory on movie theater etiquette once more. I think that it is wrong, I mean morally wrong to talk during a movie. I will go see a movie by myself first if I think there is any chance that the person I go with will need explanations at any point during the movie. Even then, my most common response is, "Hold on, they'll explain it in a moment" or "I can't tell you if I don't know". Secondly, if you get up and leave the moment the credits start rolling; what's wrong with you? Do you walk away from someone the moment they've fulfilled your use for them or do you politely take your leave like a civilized human being. When the sermon's over do you crumple up you bulletin, throw it on the floor and noisily exit while the remainder of the service continues? Finally, I laugh when something is funny. All those artists, the writer, the director, the actor and the editor have all worked hard to make something funny. Am I supposed to sit there straight faced like I'm being interrogated by the FBI? Know, it's more than just my right to laugh, I am compelled by my humanity to laugh when something is funny. Hey I just paid $9.50 to be entertained, if I didn't want to laugh I could have stayed home and watched television... Oh yeah, "Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2" was funny and I laughed.

The Fighter and The King's Speech

2011-01-23T16:32:00.000-08:00

There have been some great boxing movies, but I really hate watching the sport of boxing, so I usually avoid the movies. I am glad that I made an exception for "The Fighter". As with other great boxing movies, this film is not about boxing, rather it is about family, overcoming obstacles and understanding what is really important in life. I know that sounds very cliche, and I know it's all been done before, what distinguishes this film is the how. Here is an unflattering portrayal of a family that is full of selfish, broken people. Yet instead of telling the story of escape, or rising above, the filmmakers focus on working through the differences, growth, and forgiveness. Christian Bale's character is central in accomplishing this challenge. As an actor he thoroughly convinces us that he is worthless, yet that is not how his brother sees him. There were characters and moments within the film that I really disliked, almost cringingly so. Yet as the film concluded it became clear that those elements only contributed to the underlying message. This is the best constructed film of the past year, but it's not the individual pieces that prove that, rather how those pieces fit together.

"The King's Speech" is another example of Harvey Weinstein backing a good movie, yet convincing us all that it's a great film. I must admit that even while watching the film that aura infiltrated my mind, leading me to think that I was witnessing something great. Yet in retrospect, this was a very simple, somewhat generic movie, with a great cast and rich, detailed settings. Even now as I write this I remember reading an article comparing the plot of this movie to "The Karate Kid". I am grateful that I was not thinking of this as I viewed the movie, because I the parallels are obvious. I bring this up, because out of honesty that article may be subconsciously influencing my perspective on the film. I can only hope that I would have reached the same conclusion all on my own. What keeps this film from achieving true greatness (like "The Fighter" above) is that the story is driven by the performances of the characters, and those performances are designed only to drive the story. Even if each individual piece is well crafted, the overall result seems contrived. Once again, once that curtain is lifted and I am jolted from the illusion, my appreciation of the movie is seriously degraded.

Tron and True Grit

2010-12-23T16:01:00.000-08:00

It has been just over a week since I watched the new "Tron" There are three thoughts that come immediately to mind when thinking of the movie: 1. It was fun to see the Tron world once again. The sounds, images, effects and costumes are an updated version of the universe created for the first. 2. Plastic, synthetic, animated Jeff Bridges isn't anywhere close to as cool as the real Jeff Bridges. Unfortunately I found this effect to be extremely distracting, and that really kept me from enjoying the movie overall. 3. Why? I know the answer, we've talked about this before. I know that Hollywood makes movie for one reason, which is to make money. It just seems that by now common sense would dictate that a really great sequel will make more money than a mediocre one. If this principle would prevail then both filmmaker and viewer would win. Perhaps it would be impossible to ever build upon the memories that Tron gave us, but it seems as though they could have done a better job this time around.

Jon and I watched the John Wayne version of "True Grit" on Tuesday evening. My understanding is that the Coen Brother's were more concerned with adapting the book rather than remaking the film. There were aspects of the new movie that are significantly different from the 1969 version, but nothing that makes a remake worthwhile. Actually, if anything the new version reaffirms the greatness of the original. This is too bad, since the Coen brothers have made some of the best American movies of our generation. One example has to do with Rooster Cogburn's final showdown in the movie. In the classic film, John Wayne clenches his horse's reins in his teeth and charges four bad guys, a lever action rifle in one hand, pistol in the other. This scene is intact with Jeff Bridges as Cogburn, yet he opts for two pistols as he charges across the field. Let me just say that there is no good explanation for this change. Perhaps the book clearly specifies two pistols. Maybe the Bridges couldn't pull of the stunt. Or, it may be possible that John Wayne copyrighted that technique. If the ride doesn't include that lever action rifle, it's not really "True Grit".

Narnia and Following

2010-12-14T20:56:00.000-08:00

I skipped "Prince Caspian" because I was disappointed with "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe". Rob heard good things about "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and since I usually pick the movies, so we decided to give the new Narnia another try. This is one of those moments when I could really complain, or I could look on the bright side... Heads; positives, tails; negatives... Aslan is a big puppet, with Liam Neeson's voice. The best part of the book, when Eustace becomes a dragon, is condensed into about three minutes. The special effects all (and I do mean all) look like a Technicolorized version of better effects from better movies. The Dawn Treader itself looks like something Captain Jack Sparrow would give to his kids (if he had any). The entrance Aslan's Country, while artistically interesting, just doesn't come close to matching my imagination. Perhaps it's because thee filmmakers use an effect from "The Abyss" (which was better 21 years ago). The story and characters were all watered-down, and not in a good Sea-voyage kind of way. If I pretend for a minute that the coin had come up heads; the movie does capture moments from the book, and some of its spirit. Too bad the filmmakers don't love the material, or have the talent (or both) to accurately bring this wonderful series to the screen.

A Few weeks ago I watched "Following" on Netflix. I had it in my queue for quite some time, I think "Inception" coming out on video nudged me to take a look. As many of you know, "Memento" is one of my favorite movies, so to see the movie that made "Memento" possible was interesting to me. What I found were all the elements of a great Christopher Nolan film. Shot in black and white with unknown actors and a low budget, Nolan proves that an interesting script and an eye for storytelling is all you need. That being said, the independent nature of this film definitely leaves its mark, the film is somewhat simplistic and rough. Action and photography seem to take a back seat to dialogue and editing (as should it should be) but here those shortcomings stand out and are distracting. One thing that Nolan tried to do was surprise the audience with certain plot points. He employed the non-chronological techniques that would show up again in "Memento". Unfortunately, since "Memento" is a far superior film, I was able to pick up on his cues, and found this movie to be quite predictable. All in all though, it is great to be able to see how Nolan started out, and I sure do hope that he keeps it up.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

2010-11-24T09:40:00.000-08:00

The Harry Potter series has been hit or miss over the past few years. Overall I would place "Deathly Hallows Part I" in the 'hit' category. I have become acutely aware of movie cliches, actually more than that, cultural cliches. Clever comedies, like "30 Rock" recognize and play with these cliches. Shows like "24" and movies like "Twilight" take advantage of these cliches, but unfortunately rely so heavily upon them as to become cliches themselves. This relates to "Harry Potter" in the fact that when it's original, it's great, but when it turns to cliche, it falls flat. The whole opening sequence, as children are leaving home was terribly flat. I made it better in my head by playing "She's leaving home after living alone for so many years..." in my head as Hermione left her house. Movies like this need to be filled with a sense of wonder and amazement, otherwise the weight of reality will crush their potential. That being said, there were wonderful scenes and moments. The sidecar motorcycle chase sequence was amazing. The crackling AM radio dance scene was a great scene, not just for Harry Potter, but as film capturing an idea so gracefully. I think back to the first Harry Potter film, and I like that it focused on Harry's point of view. It was of course the Ugly Duckling story retold. Since then there have been a few movies that were good, either for exciting action or compelling stories. The movies have always contained at least enough to make me want to see the next on. Surprisingly, "The Prisoner of Azkaban" accomplished the amazing feat of making a Harry Potter book into a great stand alone film. Imagine how different the world would be if only all the Harry Potter stories had come out that good. Yet, as we have come farther from Harry's initial experience with magic, it seems as though the thrill has gone. I want to see it through of course. Having not read the books I'm hoping there's still a surprise or two in store. Obviously the wizard guy, Dumbledore isn't really dead. Snape (the undercover wizard) is going to bring down Voldemort and his whole organization (tax evasion charges). Once and for all Harry's going to tell Ron to take a hike (he's been the third wheel for too long already). And if there's any justice in this world, Harry and Hermione will finally get married, fade to black, "The End".

Hereafter and Due Date

2010-11-12T09:52:00.000-08:00

I'm hoping that these movies represent the sad, disappointing calm before a storm of really good movies. Even though I don't completely believe that it'll help, I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

"Hereafter" could easily be considered Clint Eastwood's "The Sixth Sense". Unfortunately it's not that entertaining, and the tough questions Eastwood is willing to ask are the same ones he runs away from at the end of the movie. If I had to sum-up the message of this movie it would be; find people who understand you, because most people are just too shallow to be sensitive to your needs. Matt Damon's character cannot get the girl because his gift/curse has unnaturally breached the emotional barriers that protect us from each other. The movie could have been an analysis of honesty, fear and vulnerability within relationships. Instead, Eastwood got overly caught-up in the storytelling process. The characters threads seemed more important than the characters themselves. Usually I wouldn't complain about an open-ended conclusion to a movie, and really this movie could have a wonderful ambiguous ending. Instead, Eastwood came up with a hybrid mushy/vague ending that was edited to make it seem better than it really was. Obviously, this is Eastwood's movie, so he can do whatever he wants, but if you can't come up with a good ending, don't try to trick me.

PS, If you want to see how to properly end a movie, see "No Country for Old Men".

Head over to www.apple.com/trailers and watch the preview for "Due Date". Most likely you've laughed about as much as you would during the feature length film. I will admit that there was enough new content in the movie that I laughed at things that weren't in the preview. Unfortunate, since I had already seen the preview, and therefore didn't really laugh at the stuff I'd already seen, the movie itself didn't add enough to the experience to make it feel worth while. If you've read my previous reviews of movies, especially comedies you probably recognize the following trend; I am gullible when it come to movie previews. If a trailer really strikes me as funny, if it asks a question I find intriguing or shows me imagery that I find amazing, I'm hooked. No matter how many times movies have failed to deliver on their promises, I'm still giving out hope, through the act of purchasing tickets. I could tell you about some other funny scenes. I could warn you of some of the inappropriate content. I could, but I'm not going to. If you want to see the movie, I don't want to spoil the few laughs you'll get, and honestly, the inappropriate stuff, relatively speaking, for an R-rated comedy, is tame. Mostly I just wanted to take a moment to decry the trend in Hollywood to produce trailers that in essence make it unnecessary to see the movie. Ya, ya, I know, I don't have to watch the trailers or the movies, but hey, it's fun to complain about something.

PS, Have you seen the trailer for "Sucker Punch" (specifically the one with 'When the Levee Breaks'), the movie is probably going to suck, but the trailer sure is sweet.

Red and The Pirates of Penzance

2010-10-17T19:39:00.000-07:00

There wasn't enough of the good stuff and a little too much of the bland stuff.
I'm currently in an English Composition class, and let me just say, that first sentence just wouldn't fly. So I will revise my statement. "Red" is a film that observes nuances very well. Bruce Willis' character stands in his front lawn an glances up and down the street. He notices something is lacking, causing his house to stand out. After remedying the oversight, a look of satisfaction comes over his face. It is details like this that make "Red" an enjoyable little movie. Unfortunately the subject matter, retired CIA agents, seems like a retread. One cliche leads to another. Tired, worn-out elements overwhelm the fresh, quirky humor. There are plenty of laughs, quite a few entertaining moments, but overall there's nothing new here. I think that Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis and John Malkovich make movies better by just being present. This movie had a lot going for it, just not enough to make it better than 'just OK'.

I wrote that review almost a month ago, I just realized that it has been sitting waiting to be posted...

I saw "The Pirates of Penzance" around the same time, but this review is fresh off my brain:

There are many ways I could approach "The Pirates of Penzance". Unlike some in the family it has probably been 10 years since I last saw this movie. Mom had a good point though, the film transfer make it a completely different experience no matter how recently or often (frequently) you've seen the movie. The colors are vibrant, the full screen is there and the sound is wonderful. For our family the nostalgia of this movie is unavoidable (and even if it was avoidable, why would anyone want to avoid such a great movie?) I sat down and watched it with Jude one evening, and it is interesting to share the experience with the next generation. Of course I love the movie because of the good memories it stirs up. Even the corniest, most ridiculous lines and moments are hilarious to me. Yet, as a self-proclaimed critic, I believe that I am able, on some level, to analyze the movie somewhat impartially. But honestly, as I sit here, I cannot think of one thing I would change about the movie. Sure, some of the musical numbers are not as strong as others, but they are are so interwoven that the film would be seriously lacking with any omissions. I seem to remember some dislike for the "Hail Poetry" interlude. I would argue that without that song, "The Pirates of Penzance" would cease to exist. It might not be as cherished as "I Am A Pirate King" or "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General", but when those characters, stop at the moment they do, and in one voice proclaim "Hail Poetry", it sends shivers down my spine. Jude liked the movie. He especially (spoiler!) liked that Frederic is only five years and a little bit older. Of course even a month later I sing that I am a pirate king at least 17 times every day, but hey, there's worse things I could be singing right?

The Town, The Social Network and True Grit

2010-09-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

I think that "The Town" was successful in delivering everything I expected from it. This may seem odd, but really, what it left out may have been one of it's strengths. Affleck (as director) wisely avoided many paths that this material could have followed. For example, instead of dwelling on plot twists, Affleck focuses on how his characters react to surprises. As a director he understands that why people do things is far more interesting than what they do. He allows a natural, emotional response to occur, which is refreshing for this kind of movie. I think that the ending was the weakest aspect of the film. There is a tendency to wrap things up cleanly (a happy ending), which is understandable, but for it to work in this kind of a story it has to be executed perfectly. Here it just seemed forced. Not to be too repetitive in my view on movies, but once again, sitting through this movie, I was reminded of a similar film that was far superior. "Heat" set the bar so high in this genre that it almost seems pointless to compete against it. For example, there has not yet been a firefight depicted on screen that even comes close to the one in "Heat". The conversation between De Niro and Pacino in the coffee shop makes all other conversations between cops and robbers seem like Mr. McFeely and Mr. Rogers talking on the front porch on a Thursday afternoon.

"The Social Network" reminded me of an epidode of the old television show "Max Headroom" All publicity is good publicity. No matter how sharply users of Facebook get ridiculed, it's still cool. It's like the people who advocate for privacy rights against Facebook. It's like getting angry at the barber for removing your hair... Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is a wonderful invention, and the film certainly portrays Mark Zuckerberg as a genius. Yet I think that the average Americans are notorious for recognizing what is great for the wrong reasons. Point in case; Obama and "Avatar". Obama would be a great replacement for Oprah (not Bush). "Avatar" was a great movie (not film). Facebook is a great social network, it is not a replacement for friendship.
David Fincher was the perfect director to make this movie. It takes a special kind of ironic sense of humor to make a film that both glorifies and condemns at the same time. Think about it, in "Fight Club", Tyler Durden speaks of the evils of materialism, all while being the epitome of cool. In "The Social Network" Fincher addresses the meaning of friendship. The guy who invents the website that has defined friendship for this generation doesn't know what friendship is. It's interesting how a shadow of a thing is so often the replacement for something real in our society.

I've mentioned to some of you before the remake of "True Grit" by the Coen brothers. A couple trailers are now available to view, and it's looking pretty good. In the first trailer there is some clear John Wayne imagery, and the second trailer features a fitting song (albeit overused of late). I sense some depth in this remake that didn't quite make it into the original. I'm going to have to say that this looks like the most promising upcoming movie. Until next time, goodnight.

The American

2010-09-20T19:58:00.000-07:00

It is important that you, the reader of this review know that the movie I saw just before "The American" was "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo". This is vital information because in many ways these movies are very similar. Both are dripping with European moodiness. What I mean is possibly 30% of each movie is devoted to long pauses, 25% of each movie is focused on sullen faces, 17% is shadows, with another 21% pure darkness. That leaves approximately 7% for story, action, dialogue and the titles (opening and closing). Perhaps I am being unfair. Even though I was aware of its style, it didn't distract me during "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". And in all honesty "The American" was a good movie, and I liked certain aspects. The problem is that it was too much, too close together.

George Clooney plays an assassin who is confronted with the idea that he has lost his soul. What makes this a dilemma for him is the discovery that he wants a soul. Of course regaining a soul is not quite as easy as losing it (at least according to standard cinema conventions). The plot is standard, simple and merely a vehicle for a performance by Clooney. What sets this film apart are his conversations with a local priest. These brief exchanges lead to Clooney's character making decisions at key moments, that will forever change the course of his life. I liked the cause and effect nature of what was said and done. So often in movies, one seems to be a slave to the other (dialogue and action). "The American" did something else I really appreciate, it developed a character without seeming heavy-handed. Clooney's American has a love/hate relationship with life. This is symbolized in his mechanical expertise. It is clear that he is gifted and even finds peace in working with his hands, yet he uses this ability to do that which he is trying to avoid. For this reason, even with its thick European feel, I found the film to be very intriguing.

Machete

2010-09-04T09:25:00.000-07:00

I have witnessed the progression of special effects, as we have moved from film techniques such as scale models) into the digital age (computer generated imagery). Early in the development of CGI I was willing to forgive filmmakers for taking risks. "The Abyss" for example really did something that sparked my imagination. Along with effects came new techniques (such as Bullet-time in "The Matrix"). The first time seeing a new technique, regardless of context it seems pretty amazing. "The Abyss" came out 21 years ago, and by now CGI has become commonplace, and I personally expect these effects to be perfect by now. That being said I have a few exceptions to this expectation, and Robert Rodriguez defines the first: No matter how many movies Rodriguez has made, he has maintained a very home-made feel to his movies. What worked in "El Mariachi" (and more so in "Desperado") has carried through all his films, which now includes "Machete". Action is cartoonish (graphic and violent, but nevertheless cartoonish). Dialogue is direct, efficient and funny. The acting, storylines and music all match the feel that Rodriguez has established, which produces a grown-up Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon. I am sometimes surprised that I like this kind of movie, when I think about it as separate parts, or try to explain it later, I realize that it really was a shallow, visceral movie experience. Yet Rodriguez is so energetic in his delivery that this mess of a movie somehow works for me. I think of it this way; if they had a 24 hour a day Coyote and Roadrunner channel, that would get old real quick, but small, inventive doses can be extremely entertaining. The reason Rodriguez is an exception to my special effect rule is that in writing, directing, shooting and editing the films all himself, his movies truly leave the impression that you're somehow tapped into his imagination. The shotgun basts that take off a limb and send the recipient hurtling back into a wall, aren't meant to be real, rather a fantastic representation. I know that Rodriguez (like Tarantino) has a great deal of appreciation for exploitation films of the 60s and 70s. Even though "Machete" is a tribute to those movies, I think that I can enjoy Rodriguez's vision without sharing his opinion on what defines a great film.

I think that I should take time to mention once again that movies like "Machete" aren't for everyone. Maybe they aren't for anyone.

The Other Guys, The Karate Kid and The Expendables

2010-08-15T18:30:00.000-07:00

Over the last two weeks I've seen a few movies in the theater, but up till now haven't taken the time to write about them. I will devote a paragraph to each, starting with the first movie I saw.

"The Other Guys" is another one of those comedies that is funny (as a comedy should be), but is so shallow that it will soon be forgotten. As I have stated before there seems to be a requirement in Hollywood that 95% of all movies must be drivel, so that the 4% that are pure crap get special attention, and the 1% that are actually good have a chance to stand out. "The Other Guys" has its moments. Will Ferrell has an extended retort to a comment Mark Whalberg makes, which is extremely funny. Michael Keaton has a quirky role to play, although it seems a little forced and could have been funnier. Unfortunately, if you've seen the trailer, you've pretty much either seen the funniest parts or you've already been set up for the funniest parts. This is the kind of movie that makes me realize that even though Woody Allen has been doing pretty much the same stuff for 44 years, his movies are actually funny and in many cases memorable. Perhaps comedies have the greatest challenge of any kind of movie. There needs to be a story, a plot to keep the audience interested, just as in other films, but the hard part is to keep us laughing the whole time. Of course different people have different senses of humor, but it seems like a waste when so much effort is put into making so many comedies that just aren't funny.

I will be brief in my comments on "The Karate Kid". First off, it was a good remake. For the most part I enjoyed the flow of the plot, the development of the characters and the choreography of the action. I thought that having a younger actor playing the part of the Karate Kid (Jaden Smith) worked overall, but when it came to the final showdown I felt uncomfortable. To allow such a young kid to continue with the severity of his injuries was wrong, and for me was a major distraction. Jackie Chan as the mentor worked very well. Unfortunately this was my biggest problem of the movie; the payoff in the original "Karate Kid" never happens in this movie (the scene in the parking lot after the final tournament). If anyone could have convincingly pulled off that scene it would be Jackie Chan, but alas, the filmmakers here take a gentler, more symbolic approach, which I found disappointing.

About a week ago I was thinking to myself; "I'm looking forward to seeing "The Expendables: because I know that there won't be any Lady Gaga music on the soundtrack." Sure enough. This is a Lady Gaga free zone, and that is a welcome change... This is a movie dripping with testosterone, and yes I do realize that quite a few jokes could be made based on that statement. Stallone directed and stars in this action star packed action movie. As with his other recent films ("Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo") this film does a have deeper message than the action fare of the 80s that Stallone is famous for. Of course Stallone isn't making a chick flick, this is a blood soaked, brutal action movie to its core, but wrapped around a plot with heart. I hesitate to describe the best scenes from the movie, mostly because I don't want to ruin it for anyone. I will say that the casting set the stage for quite a few scenes where "what if" questions from the past 25 years finally get answered. Personally I don't believe that we'll ever get clear answers to the "What if Bruce Lee fought Stallone?" or "Jackie Chan versus Seagal?" But this movie take a big bite out of these questions and it sure is entertaining. I think it's kind of funny that Stallone does seem to be holding on to some of the cliches from 80s action movies, the endless line of paramilitary troops who are basically moving targets is perhaps my fovorite. The list of stuntmen for this movie is far greater than special effect technicians, which is rare these days in Hollywood. One final note I wanted to make; Mickey Rourke plays a role here which really puts his "Iron Man 2" character to shame. It's really sad how big budget blockbusters miss the point of great actors, yet a little action movie by Rocky himself can focus in on 2 minutes of performance that makes the whole movie. I guess I'm the sucker who paid money to see the first...

Salt and Inception revisited

2010-07-26T16:39:00.000-07:00

Rob didn't get to see "Inception" with me on opening night, so this past Friday we saw "Salt" and then stayed to watch "Inception". I can quickly say that "Salt" was better than I had expected it to be. I would have thought that it would be like Tom Cruise's most recent "Knight and Day", which was entertaining, but predictable and shallow. "Salt" has a few surprises, nothing earth-shattering, yet enough to keep it interesting. Let me take a moment to talk about surprises. Sure "Knight and Day" may have had its twist and double crosses, just as "Salt" does, but the difference is how those twists affect the plot and more importantly how the characters react. Angelina Jolie has done this stuff before, her biggest movies are probably the action movies. She has also proven herself time and again to be a great actress, and I think it helps to make this movie captivating, even though its not believable. Talking about believability, this is not a movie that contains much, if any of that commodity. What I find to be the most irritating is that here, as in so many other action movies, the heroine gets 50 1-shot kills in a row, followed by a climactic shootout in which she can hit no one. I would ask the filmmakers to please establish a set of rules, I'll ascribe to them for the course of the movie no matter how outrageous they are, but please, never break your own rules. All in all I liked this movie, it leaves room for a sequel, but as is true with most movies, it would be far better to leave it as is. If they make a sequel, it'll just detract from this movie.

Perhaps you could tell that my thoughts on "Salt" seemed rather flat and maybe you could tell that I'm distracted. Yes, and watching the movie, all the while knowing that a far better film lay waiting on the other side may in fact have influenced my viewing of "Salt". The second viewing of "Inception" only built upon my admiration of the film and those involved in its production. Today I went to a site that was discussing the chronology of events and their meaning in this film. I find that to be somewhat amusing. Perhaps I am just not a detail person. If you've read many of my reviews, you will have noticed that I care very little for what happened at any given moment in a film, rather it is the big picture, the meaning that I am interested in. The author of this other blog broke down the film by its individual scenes, then explained the three possible conclusions that could be drawn from the ending. Sure I find this kind of discussion interesting, it's probably one of my favorite things to do, but where this film is concerned it feels a like a waste of time. The movie isn't at all what it's about. To examine the details, as this blogger said; (and I paraphrase) "open it up and find out how it works", misses the whole point of the film. My fellow blogger did acknowledge that Christopher Nolan was 10 steps ahead for the whole movie. I liked that (I actually said that myself, not that anyone cares), this is a masterpiece of a film. Nolan didn't sit around watching the Smurfs for ten years, he wrote draft after draft of this script. Each rule that he establishes, each character and the relationships between characters, all of these are important. Sure, the plot, the images, even the sounds of a passing bicycle are all important. When the screen cuts to black, those details are no longer elements of a film, rather they have successfully fused together, bringing us to a conclusion that is greater than the sum of the parts. I could have ended with that cliche of a statement, but I will explain. Nolan knows that we as an audience are bringing our own pre-conceptions to the theater. As with "Memento" and "The Prestige" before, Nolan is not attempting to trick us, he is willing to explain a whole lot more than most directors would. No, he wants us to piece the puzzle together and then reach conclusions as though on our own. The final statement of the movie is not meant to frustrate us or trick us, rather to remind us who's puzzle this is.

Inception (Initial Review)

2010-07-16T10:49:00.000-07:00

With "Inception", Christopher Nolan has taken ideas and crafted them so smoothly into a film that definitely is greater than the sum of its parts. At a number of points I noticed that the dialogue was simplistic, too explanitory. Yet later, when the film was over I recognized why this was necassary. The characters onscreen weren't explaining it for us, rather they were trying to wrap their own minds around some pretty heavy ideas. I thought the casting was excellent, I really was pleasantly suprised with how well Ellen Page was able to fit into the film without me thinking about "Juno" (too much). Perhaps it is beacuase I most recently saw him in "Shutter Island" but there were some scenes where DiCaprio's perfomance was too familiar. Unfortunately there is a similar plot-line between this film and "Shutter Island" so in a way similarities in acting will be present too. That is not to say that DiCaprio wasn't amazing as usual, he was, and this will be added to an impresive streak.

Ideas are what this film is about, but in films ideas must be conveyed through images. This film was beautiful. A perfect combination of expression of ideas and the visual representation thereof. I liked that there wasn't need for explination of the technology behind linking to dreams. We've all seen by now plenty of movies that have spent countless hours treating us like idiots by showing us how to "plug in". No, this film isn't about connecting to others dreams or fighting the Matrix. This is a film about the life of a thought. Where does that idea come from? How does that idea grow? What are the consequences of having one little, harmless thought? For Nolan to take those ideas (as the screenwriter)and so clearly concieve of ways to represnt them viually is truly amazing. I think that one of the interesting facts about "The Matrix" is that most of the questions that movie sparks aren't addressed in the film. The film makes some interesting statements and sets up certain parameters, yet the audience is far smarter than the movie. With "Inception" Nolan has blown "The Matrix" out of the water. There is always the sense that he is a few steps ahead of us. Nolan knows the answers, all the possible answers, yet he is able to keep everything comprehensible and tightly interwoven with the story. Sure, once again you will walk out of a movie with plenty of questions, perhaps even some doubts about the answers you've been given, but don't doubt for a moment that anything was unintentional.

The Last Airbender

2010-07-04T11:04:00.000-07:00

I had high hopes for this movie. I don't want to regurgitate what must be going around all the message boards these days, but M. Night Shaymalan has let down his fans for the first time. Up until now I have liked all of Saymalan's films. I have thought that in many ways his films have become progressively better, with the exception of "Lady in the Water" which wasn't as good as "The Village" which came right before it. When I heard Shaymalan explain that his kid had turned him on to "Avatar: The Last Airbender", and that he (Shaymalan) was excited about making it into a film, I was excited too. I was excited because I knew that he, if anyone, could make anything interesting. Up until just last week, no matter how many times I saw the trailer, I knew that Shaymalan has the ability to make a quirky anime kids show into a great visual cautionary tale. But alas, it was not to be so. Instead I saw a movie with poor acting, poor dialogue, a run-of-the-mill New Age plot, and sub-par special effects. The worst of it was realizing that this movie is a setup, most likely for two other movies. Are we going to be deprived of a true Shaymalan film for four years? Has Shaymalan lost it? Is this just some great pre-amble to an even worse second movie, followed up by a great masterpiece, which could only be truly appreciated by being disappointed by the earlier two films? I know I'm probably reaching there. It would be far healthier to forgive Shaymalan this one error, maybe even a trilogy of errors, and hope that he gets this out of his system and goes back to who he was meant to be.

Knight and Day and Twilight 3

2010-06-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

As I told my friend Rob, "Knight and Day" is one of those movies that is slowly but surely chipping away at my desire to see movies. It's not that it was a bad movie. It's not that it was without it's moments of humor or action. It's fault was that it was bland. It is a poor copy of what has already been done. I hesitate to recommend the following, because it has faults of its own, but "Grosse Pointe Blank" is the king of this genre. The everyday guy who is really something different and the innocent woman who is in love with the everyday guy, or is she in love with the bad boy? They're both the same guy so it doesn't matter, right? Anyways, "Grosse Pointe Blank" truly understands what is interesting about this pairing, and the relationship is the focus of the film. Here in "Knight and Day", plot devices, action scenes and a poor attempt at witty dialogue are all we're really given. Sure the action was good. Sure Tom Cruise is a smooth action hero, one of a kind. But I want "Mission Impossible 4", not some generic genre retread to hold me over. Have you ever noticed that when I spend most of the time talking about another movie, most likely it's because I don't want to talk about the movie I'm supposed to be writing about?

There is nothing I can compare last night's experience to. As I looked around, I could count the number of men in the crowd with my fingers (on one hand). A Taylor Lautner cell phone screen saver to my right. A small group of women huddled around a laptop screening of "New Moon" one row ahead of me. Excitement in the air. "Do you know what trailer we get to see before the movie starts?" I hear from a couple rows away, and then oohs and ahhs as the questioner reveals "the new Harry Potter!" Of course conversation then turned to the travesty over splitting one book into two movies, which of course led to the a conversation over the far deeper travesty of splitting the final "Twilight" into two movies. Yes, there I was waiting for the midnight showing of "Twilight: Eclipse" My sister Jill and her friend fit right into the faithful fans waiting for the movie to finally begin. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I prepared for this moment a while back by watching the previous two films on DVD. I will admit to you, and not easily, that I actually liked "Eclipse". First let me say that I am fully aware that the energy of a midnight crowd and viewing the movie in a theater are automatically going to give any movie and advantage. The added fact that I was with my sister, and I knew how excited she was must also be considered. All of that aside, I believe that I am able to achieve some level of objectivity when watching any movie, and I can say without any hesitation that I did like the movie and it was by far the best of the three. One of my main complaints about the previous two movies was an apparent lack of self awareness. What I mean by that is that the subject matter is pretty far fetched, and even withing the context of the legends it deals with, it has broken quite a few rules. Some may feel that "Twilight" is "redefining" what vampires and werewolves are, but I am of the opinion that "watering-down" is a better way of stating that point. Finally this move acknowledged that vampires don't have blood pumping through their veins, they are cold, lifeless creatures. The exchanges between the main vampire Edward and the werewolf "Jacob" finally seemed real, instead of controlled by the plot. Even Bella's explanation for her stubborn position felt understandable to me. Instead of just being a girl who wants to be a vampire, I finally got the sense that this is a decision that she has made for herself. Everyone around her knows that it is the wrong decision, but with the limited perspective on life that she has, it is right in her mind. On top of those previous points being addressed, I also liked that the film makers took the time to explain some of the side characters and their motivations a bit more. The last movie especially was so bogged down in back and forth territorial bickering, that having everyone "get along" for the most part was a nice change. I will also say that the special effects, although distractingly PG-13 were significantly better in this installment. At one point Bella gets to pet a wolf, a pretty big wolf, and I personally couldn't spot the line between real and effect. So in conclusion, if some girl tries to get you to see this movie with her, of course you'll want to say "Please, not another chick flick!" "Can't we rent a musical or something?" But when you're sitting there in the dark, you can secretly enjoy it, while at the same time earning brownie points for when the next Tarantino movie comes out...

Toy Story 3

2010-06-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

The film makers over at Pixar have once again delivered an entertaining, beautiful and moving movie that's good for the whole family. Instead of making a children's movie or animating a grown up's movie, Pixar just makes a great film, combining all the elements necessary, without adding or subtracting according to some notion of what would appeal to certain age groups. One of the film's strengths is character development. Sure, we know the central characters from the previous film, but there is always room for growth, and new characters are introduced who are vital to the plot and the conclusion of this story. As in the previous films, "Toy Story 3" brings back memories of childhood, showcasing even more toys that are bound to spark nostalgic feelings and plenty of laughs. This movie is very funny, some jokes the kids might not get, but there's plenty here for everyone. I really liked how "Toy Story 2" was told from the perspective of the toys, and captured that bittersweet relationship between toy and child. The story of "Toy Story 3" does a wonderful job of actually exploring that relationship deeper, swinging the camera around and allowing us to see it from the child's perspective as well. This is interesting considering that I feel that Pixar's weakness has always been capturing humans. I think as the company and its artist continue to grow and mature we will see even more groundbreaking, and hopefully plenty of great stories and amazing visuals for years to come.

The A-Team

2010-06-12T15:02:00.000-07:00

Except for the last major sequence, this was all in all a pretty good movie. Some of you might not know (Mom) that I grew up on the A-Team. Part of an episode here, a few brief flashes there. I seem to remember a very small black and white television in the corner of my parent's room as being our primary viewing location. (This is also how we watched Dukes of Hazard I believe). You didn't have to watch every week, or see a whole episode to quickly get the gist of the show and understand the characters and their relationship to each other. In television this is an attribute. Understand your viewers and give them entertainment. And in the case of A-Team it wasn't a bad thing. What kept us watching was the action and the funny dialogue. Colorful characters and a variety of locations also kept the show fresh from week to week. Then of course there was Mr. T, Hannibal, Face and my personal favorite Murdoch... Has ever a better team of mercenaries ever been assembled? This brings you to my perspective when approaching the movie last night. How could a 2 hour Hollywood movie compare to childhood memories formed over some of the most impressionable years of my life? Let's just say I had fun. It was kind nostalgic trip down memory lane. Liam Neeson paid tribute to Hannibal, which some of you will read as a kind of ridiculous waste of time, but that's what old people think about things they don't understand. The rest of the cast also did a great job of portraying familiar characters, while at the same time making them their own. The screenplay captured the main elements of the television series (there's a problem, A-Team fixes it). And it was funny script with plenty of nods to what I remembered most about the show. I won't spoil the best part of the movie, but I will say that it completely captured my feelings about current film making trends and made fun in a good old fashioned A-Team way. Would it be too cliche for me to say that I pity the fool who doesn't see this movie?

How To Train Your Dragon and Shrek 4

2010-05-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

"How To Train Your Dragon" was a fun adventure. Unlike other recent releases ("Iron Man 2") this movie actually has a sense of wonder. We are transported to another place and time. We meet a interesting cast of characters and variety of unique dragon species. There is a simple story, yet this isn't so much about what or why, rather it's a movie about who and how. The relationships, between father and son, girl and boy, and human and dragon, this is the good stuff. The fact that the people here are vikings made everthing all the more entertaining. The voices, the attitudes and the beards, all made this movie better. The main dragon and his human counterpart are the center of the movie, and I liked them both. The drogon reminded me of Stitch (from "Lilo and Stitch") and since I really love that character, it worked here as well. The emotion and communication is so dependent on facial expression and body language, I believe that can either make or break the effectiveness of a film, and here it works amazingly well.

"Shrek 4" may not be as bad as "Shrek 3" (it's hard for me to say since I've tried to erase most Shrek from my mind). Sure there are funny moments. The filmmakers know the funniest material because they actually use a time warp element in order to ensure we return in time to see the funniest part a second time. Unfortunately, like with so many sequels, what made the first one truly original, barely exists in this fourth installment. Should I talk about the animation or the voice work or even the music? What's the point? Blah, blah, and a little more blah. How in the days after "Ratatouille" can animators make "Shrek 4" and bare to look at themselves in the mirror? I guess (to answer my own question) it must be the paychecks sitting on the table next to the mirror in their grand hall of their Hollywood mansions. Maybe if I didn't help support these second rate artist wannabes, crap like "Shrek 5" won't get made...

Lost

2010-05-23T23:28:00.000-07:00

Here's my problem tonight...

I believe that there is no ambiguity when it comes to eternity. I believe that peace can be found through only one path. And when the end comes, it will not be subtle, no one will doubt at the end.

Now I have enjoyed "Lost" with all its twists and turns. I like wondering what's going to happen next, then after seeing what happpens, wondering what in the world I just saw. I enjoy that the show always left room for discussion and it was refreshing to see television that was truly interesting.

In the end I'm afraid that the show took the easy way out. Kind of like the Obama advisor who will not acknoledge Islamic extremism as a threat. It would be nice to live in a world where every belief leads to some euphoric afterlife. Can't we all just get along? Unfortunately the truth can be hard to swallow. What do they say about broad and narrow roads? Anyways, maybe "Lost" would have finished better taking sides. I kind of thought that's what the show was about.

Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood

2010-05-17T07:43:00.000-07:00

Now most of you reading this probably saw "Iron Man 2" with me, so it'll be old news, but sometimes it's good to make a solid copy as a reminder (or a warning) as a lasting reference... I would guess that there are two basic camps; those who liked the original "Iron Man" and those who didn't. Those who did, should be disappointed by the sequel. Those who didn't like the first will have far less expectations and therefore be less disappointed. Sure I was still disappointed, I believe that I am a movie optimist, I always hope the movie is going to be good. (I'm a realist too, realizing that my hopes are usually quashed by the Hollywood machine). This movie has no style and no substance. Sure it's amazingly crafted, the artists and technicians earned their share of the take. But no matter how many suitcase Iron Man suits transform, no matter how many, wait a minute... This movie wasn't even that cool. The special effects weren't even that amazing. It wasn't interesting, it wasn't funny, it wasn't anything, just blah. Very expensive blah. To top it off, apparently they hired Mickey Rourke to repeat his performance from "The Wrestler". He must have read the script and thought to himself, "This will be a nice little mental vacation". If I can praise the movie for anything it would be consistency. The actors, the story, the dialogue, the setting, etc. all were equally blah.

Let me set up my review of Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" talking about the true Robin Hood for a moment. Howard Pyle wrote a little book called "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" which for me is the standard by which all things Robin Hood should be measured. My childhood had its references too, the Errol Flynn film and of course the wonderful Walt Disney version featuring Roger Miller. That being said, Ridley Scott seems to know a little about Robin Hood. Enough to use him as a cultural reference in telling his own tale and relaying his own message. This very easily could have been very upsetting to me, yet I found myself liking the film and going along with this retelling. I think he avoided making any definitive statements, like "this is what really happened" or "my version is better than that version". Scott tells a story with convincing characters (played well by great actors) and uses the legend for a backdrop. Really this film could have been an original story that took place in the time of Robin Hood and it would have been just as good. My complaints about Scott in the past have been lack of originality ("Gladiator") and frustration to the point of annoyance ("Black Hawk Down"). With "Robin Hood", although it never achieves greatness, he at least makes his own film, and tells a compelling tale that pays tribute to its source material.

David Mamet

2010-04-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

Years ago I was blown away by "Glengarry Glen Ross" It was one of the most boring movies visually, yet one of the most captivating to listen to. An eye opening experience (or ear opening I guess) in realizing how important writing is in film. The reason I write today about Mamet is that I just watched "Redbelt" for the first time. It is truly amazing how a little film that is written well can be such a captivating experience. People that react to what has happened. Not in a contrived plot sense. Sure, in the upcoming Summer blockbusters people are going to do and say stuff, but it will all be a slave to the plot. Mamet makes me feel that the plot serves the words. I mean when someone says something it impacts what happens next. Words and actions have true consequences in a Mamet screenplay. The most powerful moment in this film is a slap. But the slap can't stand alone. There must be a build-up and a reaction to the act of a slap. In a few weeks people will be watching Iron Man flying around blowing stuff up. He'll say something and Gwyneth Paltrow will say something funny in return. But in the end I will be left with an shallow memory of having been entertained. "Redbelt" is burned into my memory, and I believe was a worthwhile time spent watching a film.

I look back at other films by Mamet; "The Spanish Prisoner", "Heist" "Ronin", "Hannibal" and "The Edge". I think all of them were entertaining, and very importantly different from each other. "Redbelt" is his latest, and I think his best. So in a world of write-by-numbers, dumb it down for the masses, it's nice to think that Mamet is only getting better.

Kick-A**

2010-04-23T08:10:00.000-07:00

Typically I never look at Roger Ebert's review of a movie until after I've written about it myself. I hope that my ideas come across as my own, and then I compare my perspective to his. I mention this only because as I was skimming through his site I caught the first few lines of his "Kick-A**" review. To tell the truth I was going to give an overall positive review of the movie, but after seeing his thoughts I began to question myself. The title character of this movie is an average New York City high schooler, who wants to be a super hero. This is one of those self-aware, self-narrated, tongue in cheek dark comedies that is meant to be funny by being outrageous. I will admit that I liked the movie. It is one of those fast paced, well written visceral experiences that sucks you in, while you're in your seat. Now what Ebert so clearly states is that this movie is morally reprehensible. One of the supporting characters (who steals every scene she's in) is an eleven year old girl. He mother was killed when she was young, and her father has trained her to assist him in their pursuit of vengance. Now on one hand, seeing an eleven year old girl do the stuff she does is pretty amazing. No matter what special effects they used, this is one talented little actress. But (to quote "Jurassic Park") it seems they were so busy wondering if they could make a little girl fly through the air and slice bad guys heads off, that they didn't stop to consider if they should. I am reminded of "The Professional" with a young Natalie Portman, that was a gritty, reaistic glimpse at a similar situation. This is a good example of how the approach to certain subjects is so important. Real life is messy. It is sad that people who are too young often deal with the harsh realities of this world. I think it can be a good thing to make films that address these concerns, but "Kick-A**" is not the way to do it.

Twilight (so far)

2010-04-06T09:52:00.001-07:00

So the other night I gave the first "Twilight" movie a chance...(and watched the second one the following night)...

Jess had already seen the first one, and had liked aspects of it, and since I have a feeling I'll be watching the third one this Summer, I though it best to get caught-up. That being said, I heard a comedian not too long ago say that he'd just watched "Twilight". He said that "Footloose" is a better vampire movie than "Twilight", and he was right. The makers of the "Twilight" series display a real lack of knowledge when it comes to their subject matter. I'm sure that this has been discussed in extensive detail elsewhere, so I won't go into it. On the other hand these movies aren't about vampires or werewolves, rather they are about people. Teenage angst. The feeling of being old beyond your years. Frustration that the world is passing you by and the things you long for seem so distant and unattainable. I think the movies do a good job of tapping in to that human condition, and the characters do represent honest emotions. The movies are also lush visually. Sure the makeup and the close-ups and the slow motion are obviously overdone, but hey, it all fits the package. I found myself snickering when wolf-boy takes off his shirt, but then I'm not a fifteen year old girl (no offense to my favorite sister). When vampire-boy and Bella kiss, I can't help but think that his body is ice cold, no blood pumping to warm his lips, how can she enjoy it? But then I guess different things turn on different people, so who am I to judge?
The best vampire movies know why we a both afraid and drawn to the idea of vampires. They possess immortality and supernatural abilities, yet they also represent the dark, addictive, lost nature of man. The moral is that there is a price to pay for selling your soul, and the price always outweighs the rewards.

Now I don't know how this "Twilight" series is going to turn out, my impression is that somehow, if your love is strong enough, even the pitfalls of vampirism can be lessened, and life can be at least bearable for the damned.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

2010-03-24T18:18:00.000-07:00

Jude has read all the "Wimpy Kid" books and Ashley has read a few of them. The movie "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is faithful to the series. Jude and I both liked the animation used throughout the film. Even though the animation is based on the very simplistic drawings from the books, it helped to set the atmosphere for the movie. It's one of those things that I believe is endearing about the books as long as you don't give it too much thought (like thinking about the fact that the drawings are by an adult). I found the movie to be very funny and I laughed throughout. The actors chosen for the main roles were all well cast. This movie had charisma and like "The Sandlot" for example, a kids movie needs that to survive a grown-up viewing. If you've read any of the books you already know that since the story is told from the perspective of a middle school boy there may be some situations and behaviors that adults would consider questionable. There are irreverent kids, mean kids, gross kids, etc. There is an incident that takes place midway through the movie in which the main character faces an important decision. Even though I was unhappy with his decision and many that followed, I like that the story made him suffer the consequences. Sure, as with most movies, kids or otherwise, the ending was nice and clean. Typically I would complain how this cinematic device would jolt me from the illusion of the film and completely ruined a perfectly good movie. In this case it rings true, kids are much more likely to forgive and forget. Perhaps this is a lesson that adults can learn from children. After all, unless you have the faith of a child...

The Blind Side

2010-03-20T10:42:00.000-07:00

Jess and I got to go out for her birthday last night and we got to see "The Blind Side" together. This is the kind of movie we both like, this kind of movie and "Ocean's Eleven". There has been much made about Sandra Bullock's likability but poor choice in starring roles. She typically goes for roles that guys like me find irritating. Yet how can anyone not like Sandra Bullock? The buzz was right on, Bullock does an excellent job in "The Blind Side" and this is an uplifting, heartwarming story (if you're into that sort of thing). This is one of those little films that knows what it's trying to accomplish and doesn't overstep its scope. What I mean is that although football is a thread, the movie never tries to be about football. There are just the right number of characters, and theses characters support the story being told. And "The Blind Side" is successful as a film by telling a dramatic, interesting, well organized story, yet feels real because it never stoops to cinematic cliche or forced cause/affect moments. I hope that Bullock takes this film to heart in future role selection. It is proof that you can make a Sandra Bullock movie that doesn't feel like it was written in an afternoon by someone who only ever has seen chick flicks and is under the impression that they are the only kind of film to make. It reminds of of the line from "The Blues Brothers"; Elwood: "What kind of music do you usually have here?" Woman: "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country *and* western". "While You Were Sleeping" was a good movie, cream of the crop in its genre. I just hope with this movie Bullock can finally escape the genre and make films that remind us why nobody really dislikes Sandra Bullock.

The Green Zone

2010-03-14T12:46:00.000-07:00

Ben and I have talked about Paul Greengrass' camerawork before, and once again it seems like the ad for a camera operator must have stated that it was an entry level position... Personally I don't think this is a knock against the movie. For the most part the gritty, personal, somewhat spastic camera actually works for the story being told here. The trailer is somewhat misleading, suggesting that this is another "Bourne" action movie. Fortunately Greengrass and Matt Damon take this story a different route. Damon's character is a wise and experienced soldier. Yet he is not without limitations, and the fuel that drives this movie is the story, not the action. I like how Greengrass makes definite statements about details that are undeniable, yet respects the intelligence of his audience when the questions raised drift into the uncertain. For example, we were told that Iraq currently possessed weapons of mass destruction, as a reason for engaging in a war against Saddam Hussein's regime. As of yet these weapons have not been discovered, which means that somewhere there was flawed information. These are all points that the film uses as its base. The questions it raises and theories it presents pertain to how and why such an important piece of the puzzle was flat out wrong. I like that Damon is presented 100% as a patriot, and 100% as a thoughtful, conscientious man. Unfortunately this is also an area where the movie became somewhat unrealistic. Damon's character as an Army Chief Warrant Officer acts in a way that no member of the military would ever get away with. There are acts of insubordination here that would at the very least get him court martialed and most likely get him killed. Then too there is an Iraqi citizen called Freddy, who never rises above the cliche that his character represents. This can sometimes make sense in a screenplay, because of the time limitations in a film you must have simple supporting characters to drive the story. But here it's just real bad. Freddy is a shortcut in every way imaginable. There is actually evidence in my mind that he isn't even a real character, just a jumble of thoughts and ideas. Especially his last moments in the film, which are inevitable made me fell so cheated. As I have said before, when a film, especially one that intends to be believable jolts me into realizing that everything is a slave to the plot, the whole film falls apart. This would have been a very good film if Freddy would have been omitted.

The Princess and the Frog and Alice In Wonderland

2010-03-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

I took my daughters to see "The Princess and the Frog" not too long ago, and because I don't review enough family friendly, here I go: I think it's pretty obvious that this movie is an attempt by Disney to make a traditional animated film that appeals to a broader audience, or maybe a more specific, as of yet neglected audience. It does seem odd when you think about it that Disney of all companies has maintained (as they say in Washington) the status quo for so long. This political insight aside, I thought that the movie was a good one. "The Princess and the Frog" continues in the spirit of this style animation from recent memory. At the same time I've been getting the feeling that this style has become a back-burner priority for the studio, and in some ways it feels unnecessarily bland and dated. Another knock against this movie relates to its setting and its villain. Louisiana and a Voodoo witch doctor aren't exactly wholesome family friendly fare. Yet to be fair I think it would be difficult to find any Disney movie that doesn't dabble in the occult or evil of one kind or another that isn't somewhat questionable. So by that rationale, this movie like its predecessors does make a distinction between good and evil, and in the end good does prevail. Now as I said I did like the movie overall. It had that classic Disney fairytale quality. Some of the visuals were very entertaining, and I hope that the studio keeps this art form alive for a long time to come. The music wasn't great, too bad about that, but it fit well into the context of the movie. Maybe it's that it's that I'm getting old, I tend to fondly remember the greatness of "Aladdin", and long for a current film to equal its technical and artistic level. Perhaps I need to recognize that the talent has shifted, moved on to a newer form. "Ratatouille" definitely surpassed the "Aladdin" benchmark, so I guess I just need to go with the flow, enjoy classic animation from its heyday, and appreciate what we have now.

I'm going to compare Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" to Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" Both succesfully take us into a highly imaginitive world as only Burton could bring to life. Both contain a prfomance by Johnny Depp as only Depp could deliver. Each have a story that delves deeper into the human condition than you might expect. These are modern fables in a tradition of storytelling that seems lost upon most current filmmakers. So at this point in the review I would say that I was happy with "Alice in Wonderland", it contained all the elements it should, and the 3D technology used help contribute to the overall visual experience. Unfortunately this movie lacks something that made "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" great. Here is where I should explain exactly what that "something" lacking is, but it's more complicated than that. It may be that Depp's characters, although each original and amazingly realized, are on two different levels. In "Charlie" he really got me to sympathize with his character. Whereas in "Alice" I never became personally involved with his character plight. In "Charlie" Burton was able to establish a flow to the film, and even with the flashbacks everything seemed to progress the story in a fluid and entertaining fashion. In "Alice" there seems to be a more traditional, chronologically strict style, which seems to bog down the screenplay at times. Now none of these critisisms are fatal flaws, yet they detract enough to keep the film from being as good as it should have been.

Cop Out

2010-02-27T11:17:00.000-08:00

I realize that my taste in movies is broader than that of some of my readers. Some of you may never have seen a Kevin Smith film before, and if that is the case, maybe it should stay that way. "Cop Out" is by far and away the tamest of anything Smith has ever done, but that isn't really saying all that much. Smith has a distinct sense of comedy, in that he understands the psycology behind base humor. I guess I would suggest that Smith has elevated a form of low entertainment. When people around me talk about certain subjects I find it to be degrading and offensive. Smith has the ability to take far worse and place it into a context that I can relate to, or at least have sympathy for the plight of his characters. Let me be clear though that I do believe that Smith often goes too far. "Dogma" and "Clerks 2" and "Zack and Miri..." all take their subject matter well beyond any line as far as I'm concerned.

Beginning with "Jersey Girl" Smith has been dabbling in mainstream Hollywood movies with mainstream Holywood actors. I have found these endeavors to be somewhat lacking, but only lacking compared to his earlier independent films. Compared to the mainstream Hollywood comedies he is competing with, he is definitely at the top of the game. "Cop Out" falls into the mainstream category. It's funny, it's even Kevin Smith funny. Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan are cast well together, and aside from the fact that once again the trailer gives away too much of the good stuff, this is a funny comedy throughout.

Perhaps I'm allowing my satisfaction with "Shuuter Island" to influence my analasys of this movie too much. I had high expectations from Scorsese last weekend, and this weekend I was looking forward to a Kevin Smith film. You can read the results from last week, but this week wasn't without some dissapointment. Perhaps a brief appearance from Jay and Silent Bob would have upped this review, but alas it was not to be.

Shutter Island

2010-02-21T08:30:00.000-08:00

I've been looking forward to "Shutter Island" for quite a while. So far the combination of Scorsese and DiCaprio has proven to be flawless. I have been so disappointed with mediocrity in films of late that I was really hoping for something that could deliver on it's promises... "Shutter Island" is everything I knew it would be. Even though I had high expectations going in, and even though the film achieved greatness throughout, it's amazing how Scorsese still has the ability to surprise and impress at just about every moment he chooses. And of course once again, here's DiCaprio at the top of his game. Perhaps someday he'll lose his touch. Maybe he'll make a poor role selection or slip in his personal life in a way that catastrophically affects his onscreen presence. But right now he seems perfect. I don't want to give too much away about the plot, but here DiCaprio must play such a wide range and he makes the needed transitions take place so smoothly as to be nearly invisible. In a sense you can't fully appreciate everything he's done until the film is completely over. I could use cliches to describe why this film was so effective; I could discuss how the atmosphere, the sets, the editing and the camera work all worked together to create terrifying tension. I could point out the obvious homage that Scorsese was paying to Hitchcock through not only cinematography, but also with his direction of the actors performances and the classic Phycoesque music. Instead I would suggest that for Scorsese all these elements were a natural, automatic course to follow. When you're making a perfect film there is only one perfect answer to each decision a director must make. Of course unlike other directors who may choose the "easy" course or they feel that their individual style requires them to do something unexpected, so they avoid perfection in an effort to leave distinct trademark. With "Shutter Island" we get the best possible version of the film, which personally I prefer to any excuse others might come up with when they make movies similar in subject yet far inferior in substance.
On a side note there were two aspects of this film that I was uncomfortable with at the time. One, which I will not discuss here, though very disturbing, in retospect I feel was necassary in conveying the emotional power of the film. The other element, which I'm still not sure how I feel about, was the film's Holocaust flashback sequences. I guess that I have become very alert when filmmakers use historical events as backdrops to further their stories. It is very easy to use a setting so horrible as a Nazi deathcamp to establish a sense of despair and trauma. Yet does it take away from the impact those events should have in our lives when they are used for dramatic effect in a work of fiction? I think arguments can be made for and against, and ultimately it probably comes down to how reverently history is treated (and accurately). Just a thought I had. Please feel free to let me know what you all think, I'd love to have your imput on this subject.

Crazy Heart

2010-02-18T19:25:00.000-08:00

On the road with a legend. Amazing creativity in a time of mediocre drivel. An ability to tap into the rawest of human emotions and connect with his audience. Great music and great actors. These are the qualities of the film "Crazy Heart" staring Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Like "Walk The Line" before it, this film glorifies a lifestyle that if you actually think about it isn't a life you'd want for yourself. Maybe it's one of those ageless questions of what is an acceptable throwing up/writing hit song balance? Personally I really hate thowing up and I try to avoid it as much as possible. On the other hand I really would like to be a great singer/songwriter, so maybe I'd take the bad to get the good. My point is that this film contains not only the strengths of "Walk The Line" but also it's weaknesses. Although, I think "Crazy Heart" does a better job of imparting the idea that even though it's super cool to be a musical legend, it's not all a bed of roses. But really, beds of roses are overrated.

Nominees

2010-02-09T10:39:00.000-08:00

"Avatar", "The Blind Side", "District 9", "An Education", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglorious Basterds", "Precious", "A Serious Man", "Up" and "Up In the Air". These are the films nominated for Best Picture this year at the Academy Awards. Now I know that these awards are designed to promote an industry and therefore cannot be seen as unbiased. The list most likely contains certain films added primarily to spark controversy for even being on the list. It should also be noted that a list this year compared to a list from previous years would look very different and that is partly because the pool of contenders vary from year to year. So it would be unfair to say that none of these movies are as good as "Braveheart" because no movies this year were that good. So it really sucks for filmmakers when they release great films in a year of great films because it hurts their chances of being singled out that particular year (personally this is why I prefer a Top 100 List like the American Film Institute puts out, which covers all films from all time). Finally, before I comment on the specific movies nominated this year, it should be mentioned that there are three I haven't seen, including two I don't really have any desire to see...

First and foremost there is one movie on this list that does not deserve to be anywhere near the "Best Picture" category. Now this movie is a great visual masterpiece. It contains everything that the average moviegoing idiot is looking for without a shred of anything that would make it more substantial than that. If "Avatar" wins, then the Academy should officially apologize to the makers of "Speed", "Armageddon" and "Top Gun", because those films all gave us the same visceral rush that "Avatar" achieved, and didn't really give us much more. (I'd like to take this time to apologize to those three movies I just mentioned because they are actually far superior to "Avatar"). Typically the movies that gross the highest, that have the highest mass appeal are the ones that don't dig too deep. Blockbuster movies are an escape, which by definition is a kind of mindless disconnect from the real world. What gets me is that "Avatar" in it's core is a self-loathing criticism of the very system that made it possible, yet it's so gorgeously packaged in vibrant blue 3D action that everyone seems snowed. Maybe in the days of Obama, we deserve a Best Picture like "Avatar".

Secondly, the other nominees. You could go back and read what I thought of the ones I've seen so far. I'm hoping for "The Hurt Locker" to win, because it was a well crafted, effective dramatic film that got me involved and caring for the character. "Up" wasn't the best Pixar film, it really is too bad that the Academy is just now recognizing a Pixar film in this category. I feel that "Finding Nemo" should have been a nominee the year it came out. "Up in the Air", which I saw relatively recently contained a good performance, but I thought the film overall was too contrived. "A Serious Man" was another well made film that in retrospect I just didn't really enjoy. I was surprised to see "District 9" make this list, on the other hand it was a far superior alien movie than "Avatar" and even though the endings are similar, the messages are very different. And finally "Inglorious Basterds". Tarantino is back, nominated again. "Pulp Fiction" lost to "Forrest Gump", is this the film that'll finally give Tarantino some official Academy recognition? Overall the film wasn't consistently good enough in my opinion. I liked the arc that he created beginning with the opening farmhouse sequence and concluding with the Brad Pitt line. Yet it wasn't my favorite, and there was just too much unneeded 'filler' from my perspective. Yet in a year with such a weak competition, maybe Tarantino will get it. As for the three films I haven't seen, maybe "Precious" is as good as the "Godfather" but I'll never know. You know what they put on french fries in Holland instead of ketchup?

From Paris With Love

2010-02-09T10:25:00.000-08:00

The best line in this movie wasn't written well enough to deserve being present. When you reference another movie, you're using that other movie's greatness to build up your movie. Unfortunately here in "From Paris With Love" the reference alone isn't enough. John Travolta plays a secret agent who doesn't seem to value his secrecy all that much. I don't mind the shoot/blow/beat-up action movie every once in a while, but sometimes I feel as though some directors want both, a serious espionage thriller and an action movie. Well, this movie was not successful in combining those genres, so it should have stuck with one or the other. It's too bad really, because there was a hint of a great film here. We've all seen the reluctant rookie agent teamed up with the hardened veteran chasing down the terrorist. But what if one of the agents was in love with the terrorist, and what if maybe, just maybe the terrorist was in love with that agent as well. Of course now things start getting sticky and a simple moral line is more difficult to establish. This movie chickened out and answered all the questions in typical Hollywood, dumbed down, average American fashion.

The film that Travolta pays homage to is "Pulp Fiction". Now there was a film that understood that people talking about stuff is way more interesting than the stuff itself.

Edge of Darkness

2010-01-31T19:15:00.000-08:00

This film is a triple-threat combination that was so close to working for me. Martin Campbell has directed the two best (which obviously also includes the all time best) James Bond movies, and has shown himself to be a great action director who knows how to rise above the genre. Mel Gibson is a fine actor who is right at home in the rising-above-the-genre action movie. And Ray Winstone stood out in "The Departed" as someone you don't want to mess with, and here in "Edge of Darkness" he gives a similar performance, and gets more screen time to show his ability. Now the film worked better than most, it did rise above the genre for the most part. Yet there were still just enough scenes and moments to jolt me out of the experience. Unfortunately the way the film ended was one of it's weaknesses. Perhaps because of Winstone's presence I found myself comparing this film to "The Departed" quite a bit. This may be unfair, yet it a film sets itself apart as a benchmark, then shouldn't we compare other films to it? In the better film there are surprise twists, there are violent outbursts, there is a tragic hero. Those elements all exist here in "Edge of Darkness", yet Campbell isn't able to bring them together with the same mastery of his craft. The violence itself doesn't have impact, it should be the threat of violence that is effective. Plot twist aren't interesting in and of themselves, it's how they affect the characters. And a tragic hero is only as good as the actor's ability to make you feel compassion for him. When revenge is the only motivation, we feel a shallow connection to what occurs onscreen. "Edge of Darkness" is one of those good movies that really make you appreciate the great ones.

The Book of Eli

2010-01-18T15:30:00.000-08:00

Someone in Hollywood slipped up royally. How'd they let this one through? Is this film really what I think it was about, and was the film's final statement really that direct? Denzel Washington is wandering across post-apocalyptic United States with one important book in his possession. He has the only remaining copy of a book that some seek for the knowledge it contains, others desire to wield it's power over the masses. Now no one mentions the name of this book, most of those living are illiterate anyways and wouldn't know what to do with any book they come across. Yet throughout the film Denzel quotes scripture, and will not give up his book at any cost. As everyone knows by now Denzel is not someone to be messed with, unfortunately post-apocalyptic Americans haven't seen any of his movies and therefore meet their demise in an assortment of decapitations, shotgun blasts and just a good old fashioned general loss of blood. Of course Denzel remains unscathed, but how? Is there an invisible force protecting him? To top it all off the film delves into the importance of the book he carries. The words contained within may have been a reason for the catastrophic war that led to the apocalypse. The book was sought after and destroyed for fear that it's message might interfere with the plans of those in authority. And finally in the end of the film the point seems to be clear that although some might try to place this book in a category with others, like The Talmud and The Quran, this book alone is the one that has true power. Did the movie really say that?

So "The Book of Eli" surprised me, and pleasantly so. I think Denzel is a great actor, and a commanding presence, and this film only built upon that. The action sequences were violent and yet not overly bloody, especially considering what was going on. The style of the violence made it's point without overdoing it (in my humble opinion). Some of the other "action movie" stuff, the elderly couple at tea time, the cliche action movie heroine, etc. I could have done without, but all in all it was well done. Also it was hard so close after seeing "The Road" not to be conscious of the post-apocalyptic similarities/differences. Then all those other movies start coming back... "Zombieland", "Terminator: Salvation", "Wall-e" and "I Am Legend". Those are just ones I've seen in the past couple years, and it makes me ask the question; why? Is this a common human nightmare, concern, fantasy? "Eli" probably had the most positive message out of them all. "I Am Legend" captured the loneliness. "The Road" asked some tough questions. But do these films have any real value to us? Is post-apocalyptic America something we should be prepared to face? If I've learned anything from all those movies it's that I want to have plenty of canned goods (and of course a can opener), plenty of automatic weapons (and crates and crates of ammo) an extra pair of boots, a Bible and most of all I'm going to need an ipod.

Up In The Air

2010-01-12T07:28:00.000-08:00

I was recently reading an article about an Academy Award winning best picture from a few years back. The author of this particular piece stated that the film was in fact one of the worst films of the year because of it's cheap exploitation of emotions through standard Hollywood devices. Instead of making a strong argument for a specific subject, the film used every cliche and underhanded trick to make the audience feel as though they'd been convinced of something deep and important... Now I must admit that at the time I really liked the movie, perhaps I fell for it. Even though I felt that my emotions were being manipulated, I agreed with the message of the film, and I thought there were some pretty strong performances by the actors and actresses. I mention this, because for me "Up In The Air" reminded me a little of that other movie. There is a very convincing piece of acting by George Clooney, almost so good that you don't notice the weakness of everything else.Unfortunately the primary weakness is also the film's strength; Clooney's character. He basically plays the same guy from "The Wrestler" only instead of an over-the-hill has-been professional wrestler played by Mickey Rourke, we get a middle-aged, on-the-verge-of-being-obsolete professional firer. What I liked about "The Wrestler" was that Rourke's character at least knew who he was, and in the end made his decision and was prepared to live with the consequences. Here Clooney convinces us that his character is real, fleshes out some of the nuances of what makes this frequent flier so unique, but in the end what does it really matter, and what does it all mean? Now the movie was funny, it was interesting, it was a glimpse into a life that is unfamiliar to me, but that's not enough for me. Then to top it off, what could have been the best parts of the film came across as being cliche and forced. For example, when Clooney and his partner sit down to fire a long-time company man who becomes visibly distraught, Clooney gives a beautiful motivational speech on the benefits of being fired, the new opportunities that exist. It was so well written and so well acted that it felt well written and well acted. Whenever I realize I'm being manipulated, when I'm not supposed to realize it, the movie fails.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

2010-01-09T15:34:00.000-08:00

It finally got here, so Rob and I went to see "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" last night. I really enjoyed the film, even though it took some getting used to. I had seen the trailer, but didn't really know what the movie was going to be about. I was pleasantly surprised to learn how imagination was so strongly incorporated into the story, thereby explaining the strangeness of the visuals. The unique, fantastical atmosphere also helped soften (actually almost make invisible) the unfortunate fact that Heath Ledger was unable to complete his role in the film. I thought the performances by the actors who filled in for his character, were right on and a respectful tribute. Johnny Depp especially seemed to be honoring Ledger in the way he approached his part. The story as it is here in the finished film was also very well done. I think that if you didn't know the story behind the film, you may never notice the changes that had to be made. Christopher Plummer is just right as Dr. Parnassus, and I actually liked all of the casting. The special effects at first seemed too weird, but as the film went on everything melded together and I found myself enjoying the atmosphere created by the filmmakers. As I said before, this is a fitting tribute to Ledger, and I think worth a view specifically for that reason. Yet, "The Dark Knight" and other of Ledger's films will have a much longer lasting impact.

The Road

2010-01-02T00:20:00.001-08:00

I just got home from seeing "The Road". This is a difficult film to review, and I'll tell you why. O yeah, if you've read the book and plan on seeing the film, maybe you should read this later. At the same time, if you've read the book, I kind of wonder why you'd want to relive this story in the theater. This film is difficult to review because it asks some tough questions, and it is effective in creating an atmosphere of dread and despair. Yet it also fails to be convincing in certain areas. There are many holes in the realism of the events that unfold throughout.

The story is about a father and his young son, as the wander through a post-apocalyptic America. As with most movies in this genre they must carefully dodge other survivors, scavenge for food and make decisions that go to the very core of their humanity. The strength of the film was in it's presentation and understanding of those questions. How far am I willing to go to survive? Is survival the most important goal? Unfortunately the events, and the way the main characters react, are the weakness of this film. Do you set up camp in the noisiest part of the woods if you're concerned about cannibals sneaking up on you? Do you walk right into a house filled with items that look like they were taken away from people who really still kinda need them?

All in all I think the film (and I'm guessing the book) had a very strong message. I did feel a connection with Viggo Mortensen's role as the father, and thereby the film was effective in making me ask myself the same questions he faced. At the same time, I can't say I enjoyed the film because it made me feel sick, sad and worried. So this was a difficult film to review.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (and another venting session)

2010-01-02T00:19:00.000-08:00

As I look back over 2009 as it relates to movies, they pretty much sucked. So it's kind of too bad that I saw "Mr Fox" on New Years Day, thereby making what is likely the best film from 2009 be my first film of 2010. I looked back just now over my reviews from the last year. "Star Trek" and "Julie and Julia" probably are the standouts, along with "Basterds", but overall it was a year of blah and disappointments. I know I risk sounding like every other blogger when I point out the travesty of McG's Terminator waste, but that sort of sums up 2009. (And by the way, this wasn't the venting rant, that comes after the "Mr Fox" review...)

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a wonderful, entertaining, imaginative, funny film that retains everything that makes Wes Anderson great, and takes advantage of the strengths of its actors instead of using them merely as recognizable voices. From the opening sequence with Mr. Fox stretching to the Davy Crockett theme song, to the peppered dialogue between Mr. Fox and his badger lawyer and the trademark Wes Anderson cut-away sets, this was a fun movie. The way the characters interact was spot-on Anderson, yet because the some of the characters are children and because the story is about a family, it seemed very fitting as a family film. In contrast, Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums" since it is about grown up children and their family is obviously for grown ups only. The music (as in other Anderson work) was awesome, as I mentioned before, 'Davy Crockett', and also 'Disney's Robin Hood' and The Rolling Stones. I don't know if there's anyone else making films today who could pull that combination off so successfully. George Clooney as Mr. Fox is also perfect. The only other actor who could have done it would be Cary Grant, and I can see how that might have been difficult. Clooney is just the right kind of smooth to play a dishonest, good hearted, slightly absent-minded, stop-motion fox. And as far as the style of the film goes, once again I have no complaints. Other recent films have used effects unnecessarily as gimmicks (much to my dismay). Here I felt like the storybook was alive, and it even had a hint of that old Disney animation, reminding me even more of my fond memories of "Robin Hood" thereby enhancing my appreciation for this film. The one thing I will warn parents sensitive to their children's ears of, is that colorful dialogue runs throughout the film with the word "cuss" filling in for any actual cuss word. Personally I found this to be extremely entertaining, especially when Mr. Fox notes that this is turning into a real (cover your ears) cluster-cuss. Aside from that and some violence towards rats and chickens, you should see this movie immediately.

And now for the venting... Our city has increased the number of screens on which movies are shown daily. We are currently at 80 screens within 20 minutes of my front door. "The Road" is showing on one of those screens. "Avatar" on the other hand gets 13 of those screens. On top of that, "The Road" had it's "wide release" on November 25th, it didn't get here until a week ago. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" has been out for quite some time now, but nowhere near me. I could watch "The Chipmunks Squeakquel" on a different screen each night for the next two weeks, but I can't see Heath Ledger's final film? I know the reason that movies get made is a business just like any other. If most people will pay for one thing and very few will pay for something else, it's the first product that is going to be widely available. The best I can do is hope, hope that more people will stop putting up with this mass-produced garbage and support quality films instead. I know I'm kinda hypocritical, I went to see "Avatar", "Sherlock Holmes", "Fast and Furious", "Harry Potter" etc., etc., etc... Maybe I should swear off any movie that shows on more than one screen at a time. O yeah, by the way, this new A-Team movie that's coming out this summer is going to be awesome!

Invictus and Sherlock Holmes

2010-01-01T12:05:00.000-08:00

Jon and I got to see "Invictus" while he was here for Christmas. It was a solid film, with a great performance by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. I have been very impressed by most of Clint Eastwood's films. "Letters from Iwo Jima" was amazing. "Gran Torino" was a lot of fun, and "Changeling" was an excellent drama. I think "Invictus" was a very good film, but doesn't stand out like the others I mentioned. It's weakness I believe was in the story. Freeman plays such a intricate Mandela, that the film should have been his. The Matt Damon/rugby storyline wasn't as interesting, and the rugby stuff felt like filler instead of being truly important to the film. "Hoosiers" is about basketball players. It's about the players (and coaches) first and foremost. Because basketball is what they all have in common, it totally makes sense for the film to be about basketball too. "Invictus" is about unity. It's about forgiveness. It is also about the use of political maneuvers to bring about positive change. Sure, Mandela used rugby as a tool early in his presidential term, but the argument to make a rugby movie just isn't strong enough for me. The other complaint I have with th film is Eastwood's music. He forces his own style (and music he wrote) into a film that needs something different. Eastwood's music has worked well in other Eastwood films, but he should recognize that his true talent is film making and his music isn't always right.
That being said, it was a very strong film in it's individual elements. The message was positive and timeless. Damon did good for what his role required. The rugby stuff, although unnecessary was interesting in that it's a sport I'm unfamiliar with. And once again, Freeman's performance was worth the price of admission, and I would recommend a viewing based solely on him. Perhaps he will make a more detailed bio-pic later.

Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Sherlock Holmes? Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Guy Ritchie? "Sherlock Holmes" was an entertaining movie, but the answer to both previous question unfortunately is 'no'. There are hints of he real Holmes in this movie, but too few and far between. Just think of the characteristics you know to be true of Holmes. Not that those may be mentioned or used somewhat in this movie, but more as a device than as character. For example, Holme's skill of deduction is his primary resource for solving crimes. Here we are shown that he has that tool in his arsenal, yet it's kinda used randomly and it seems sorta weak at times and it doesn't always work. Is Holmes really fallible? Secondly, I thought Guy Ritchie was required to give us that 30 second sequence in which the main characters are introduced with quick-cutting flashbacks along with titles like; "Sherlock... Master Crime Rock-n-Rolla". I was lost for the first half-hour... who are these people onscreen? You mean I have to pay attention to what the characters are saying? Not all the information I need will be visually fed to me? Sure there were some pretty sweet, slo-mo, quick-edit effects that reminded me of Ritchie. Personally though, I would have preferred a true Ritchie film. It's like this new "Avatar the Last Airbender" movie that Shyamalan is working on, I want a Shyamalan movie, not him taking on some adaptation of anime. On the other hand, have you seen the new trailer for Iron Man 2 (I think Matt has a link to it)? This trailer is even sweeter than the first. Pop some popcorn and watch the new trailer, it's awesome!

Avatar

2009-12-19T09:33:00.000-08:00

"Avatar" is the first of its kind. My previous post listed examples of sub-par motion capture feature length movies, "Avatar" is nothing like those movies. James Cameron has delivered on the visual hype surrounding this film's release. The use of 3D technology is amazing, it starts out as a really, really cool effect. Yet as the film goes on you become accustomed to it, so it isn't distracting, but it does add a lush, rich layer to the look of the film. About 15 minutes into the film, when we first see the alien creatures, is when the special effects begin to shine, and they keep going all the way through. The technicians and artists truly have created believable characters in a beautiful new world. Where those inferior motion capture films have been utterly unnecessary, "Avatar" has a reason for it's synthetic humanoids. As with Gollum in "LOTR", here the filmmakers show us creatures that we've never seen before, and their interaction with what is familiar to us is so realistic that we buy it all the way. One of the film's strengths is that the indigenous animals, terrain, and plants are somewhat familiar, yet so exotic that we are constantly amazed and in wonder. Nothing vanilla here. I could go on and on about the achievement. I could point out some of the flaws, some of the poor camera, film-effect techniques that detract from the illusion of the special effects. I could criticize Cameron for his white-guilt, self-loathing, "Dances with Wolves" storyline (you should check out Edwardo's review, I think he saw the movie a little differently than I did). Instead, I'll just say that the artistic, technical groundbreaking aspect of this film makes it a worthwhile view, that must be seen as it was intended. If you plan on just waiting for the DVD, I just don't think we can be friends anymore...

A Christmas Carol

2009-11-07T19:15:00.000-08:00

Alright, here goes...

It's been over a month since I've seen this movie, and it was the last movie I saw in the theater. I think this speaks to how completely turned off to movies "A Christmas Carol" has made me. Sure, I've been busy too, but I've never been too busy to go to movies. "A Christmas Carol" is a perfect example of unnecessary use of technology. Like "Beowulf" a few years ago, this is a film that could have been made with 90% real stuff and special effects sparingly used to enhance the story. The flight through the rooftops in the opening titles was amazing, and a great showcase of 3D computer animation. Jim Carey's character was just like Jim Carey, begging me to ask the question; why? Why not just put Jim Carey in the movie. Then instead of creepy, close to realistic feelings about the onscreen character, we could have had a fun performance by a talented, flexible actor. Now "A Christmas Carol" wasn't as creepy as "A Polar Express", but it was a close second.

I decided to write about this tonight, just before going to see another motion-capture movie, "Avatar". I am hopeful. I have this strange mixed emotion, pessimism and optimism. I am pessimistic that any film could overcome all the obstacles presented by the idea of convincing my mind that something fake is really real. I am optimistic that one day there will be an exception to that rule, and maybe, just maybe a film will be so good that I will get lost in the experience believe it is real. Will tonight heal my movie aversion?

A Serious Man

2009-10-31T20:53:00.000-07:00

Seeing this movie brings up three different issues that I'd like to discuss concerning reviewing movies:

1st When I see a movie with someone who obviously doesn't like the movie does it taint my opinion?

2nd If I heard good things about the movie, including excitement expressed by someone I respect, does that taint my opinion?

3rd What makes a good movie? Do you always have to feel good afterwards? Should you feel challenged by what you just saw? What does it mean if you liked it more at the time than later on, and vica versa?

I saw "A Serious Man" with Rob. Now Rob and I really liked "No Country for Old Men" and he really liked "Burn After Reading" which I thought was good. We also both liked "O Brother Where Art Thou" and that just about covers our joint Coen Brother film experience. Therefore we should both like this new Coen Brother movie right? Well there were many things going against Rob liking this movie; the subject matter, the characters, the setting and the progression of the story. That's just about everything that matters, and I think Rob hated it all.

Review headlines and brothers can be great news for a movie, or bad news. I haven't read Robert Ebert's review of "A Serious Man", but I saw the headline on his website, praising the film and giving it four (out of four) stars. I also has a brother of mine mention his interest in this film, which automatically made it a must-see. Now what did Ebert see that didn't work for Rob? Was he able to detach himself from the slow pacing of this film and see it for what it was meant to be? Did he laugh at the same parts I did and get the irony, even when it was subtle? And my beloved brother, was it past Coen Brother films that attracted him to their newest effort, or was the trailer and effective piece of advertising? Would his opinion of the entire film itself be as high as his anticipated opinion? I hope to find out.

And now to the final question, was "A Serious Man" a good film? As I mentioned above, I was laughing. I was laughing alone in a packed theater. I become very conscious of being alone in laughter, although if the film is funny enough to laugh at I don't hold back anymore. The film deals with the life a Jewish professor of Physics during the 1960s in middle America. He is a man looking for answers. His problems are more irritating than anything else, but the sheer amount of dilemmas that befall him become overwhelming. The details of his struggles, the people in his life and his search for truth are what make of the entirety of this film. Everything here was done well and was done in an interesting way. I also found that the question that is asked more than once about God's role in our lives, specifically in troubles that we face, was especially poignant. So to answer the question directly; I thought this was a good film. What stand out to me about this film though, is that I can easily see an other perspective, and maybe you too might hate this movie like Rob does...

Law Abiding Citizen

2009-10-17T17:01:00.000-07:00

This is an effective, thoughtful and gritty thriller that delivers, up until the most important part, the last five minutes. If you have any interest in this movie, you've probably seen the trailer and are familiar with the basic storyline. So you know that Gerald Butler's family has been brutally murdered, and he's out for revenge. The twist is that Butler's character is captured soon after he begins to exact his vengeful plan, yet is able to continue it while in custody. Jamie Foxx plays the district attorney who made a deal with one of the murderers, and now must confront Butler while dealing with his personal struggle with the idea of justice. What saves this from being a by-the-numbers thriller is the emotions and ideas that Butler and Foxx fight over throughout the movie. If Foxx hadn't made the deal with one murderer he risked both of them walking free. Butler, in his quest for revenge holds accountable anyone who obstructs what he sees as justice. If those in positions of power make compromises where the law is concerned, who holds them to task? Alas, it was all too good to be true. In the last couple of scenes, so much that had been painstakingly established for the first 100 minutes of the movie, was casually tossed aside in the name of a clean ending. Dirty, messy, ugly movies shouldn't have happy endings.

Where The Wild Things Are

2009-10-17T16:43:00.000-07:00

The book "Where The Wild Things Are" was about childhood angst, and the use of imagination to defeat that angst. The book was direct and efficiently and beautifully made its point. Spike Jonze has adapted this classic book into a film that retains everything from the book and expands upon it. Where the book really lumps all of Max's emotions into a group of wild things, the film "Where The Wild Things Are" gives each monster individuality, each of which denotes a specific attribute or feeling that Max has. I liked how throughout the film Max sympathizes with each of the wild things, and we sense that he is actually recognizing his connection to each character and helping based on his personal experience. With all this being said, this didn't really do much for me. I recognized what Jonze was doing, but personally I never had childhood angst. I can appreciate Max's imagination, but imagination for me was always an expansion, never an escape. What I really loved about this film were its visuals. The wild things are amazing technical achievements. Max was wonderfully cast, and his interaction with the people in his life and the wild things was right on. Many times I found that I was lost in the atmosphere of the film, it's as good as the book, yet I never felt it was a gimmick or distracting. Finally I will say that my friend Rob is right, this is a movie for adults who understand and love the book. It's difficult for me to believe that children of unimaginative adults could appreciate this film for what it is. Therefore all children should read the book, grow up, then see this movie.

Zombieland

2009-10-04T18:20:00.000-07:00

I rolled out of bed around 9:00 on Saturday morning. It was a cool, crisp Colorado Fall day, so Jess and I decided to head up into the mountains with the kiddos and take in the colors of the changing leaves. We stopped in at Dunkin Donuts to get a well-rounded, healthy breakfast of Maple covered Long Johns, toasted Coconut and Chocolate-filled donuts. I don't know why, but for some reason I was struck by the friendliness on display, first thing in the morning, in a random store in Colorado Springs. The line for coffee and donuts stretched out of the store, into the atrium. This meant that between the store and the atrium a door had to be held open to keep the line in check. As we moved forward, the passing of the responsibility of door-holder was exchanged with extreme politeness. As I passed off my place to the guy behind me, he asked me if I knew when the Rockies game started, and when I answered to the best of my knowledge, he took it as a cue to discuss his favorable opinion of college football versus professional. I remarked that he was correct, and obviously college football is a pure version of what the NFL has so outrageously corrupted. Now this little experience struck me at the time, but the reason I'm conveying it to you is that after seeing "Zombieland" later Saturday night, the events of my morning had an even more significant meaning. "Zombieland" is about a group of four strangers who are the last remnant of humanity. It is about thier interaction with each and how no matter how bad things get there is always something inside that separates them from beasts. Now I'm not going to get into the philosophy (or lack thereof) actually contained in this film. I just found it to be an interesting coincidence that I'd see evidence of human kindness in the morning, then see it so prominently displayed in the unlikely place of a zombie movie. On top of that, if you take into account the political climate that the media is attempting to paint, one of stark contrasts and unjustified disagreements. And on top of that you add a Michael Moore movie attacking the very fabric of our society. Isn't it odd that America chose to come together and see a movie that lifts up the human struggle, instead of on that breaks it down?

Oh yeah, and "Zombieland" was a really funny movie (with zombies doing zombie stuff mind you).

Julie and Julia

2009-09-20T14:33:00.000-07:00

I'm going to go and read Mom's post about this movie as soon as I'm done writing this. Mom told me on the phone she really liked the film, and she told me that Pop even went to see it by himself that's how highly she recommended it. Now everyone knows that I am a true Julia Child aficionado, so if anyone is qualified to review this movie it must be me. Maybe I knew this before and I had forgotten, but I was pleasantly suprised to see when the film opened that it was directed by Nora Ephron. She was perfect for this film, and did an excellent job telling a story in an interesting way that didn't feel contrived or distracting. It wasn't a biography either, yet a sweet, inspirational tale of the way lives are connected, and the ways people impact each other without realizing it. The four main characters were all well cast, the modern Julie (played by Amy Adams) and her husband fit well together. There is a definite hint of "You've Got Mail" in their modern, New York lifestyle, but I'm saying that as a good thing. Of course the reason I went to this movie was for Julia, and boy did Meryl Streep deliver. She was that kind of incredible where you're not watching her at all, you're watching Julia Child. It makes me wonder if she believes that she is Julia Child, because I can't imagine it not getting cofusing at some point. It wasn't just here voice, or the way she looks, rather it was everything. Her laugh, her body language and her personality. Even the aspects that I have no way of knowing thier accuracy are just so convincing the way Streep performs. And then there was Stanley Tucci, who delivers an outstanding performance as Julia's husband. I like how he takes this on as a supporting role and does just that, supports his wife, emotionally, with advice, with strenght and with love. This is just a great film, any way you look at it. Probably my favorite film this year, and I wouldn't be suprised if Streep and Tucci get nods around Oscar time.

The Informant

2009-09-20T14:24:00.000-07:00

I like Steven Soderberg movies and I like Matt Damon movies. I even like when Steven Soderberg makes a movie with Matt Damon in it. I wanted to like this movie, but I just can't. This was a funny, quirky, original movie. The problem is that it only had one joke and it kept on repeating the same joke over and over again for two hours. I laughed at first. I even laughed an hour and forty-five minutes into it, but I left the theater feeling as though they were mostly wasted laughs. Now I recently watched "Step Brothers" on Netflix. Each and every laugh in that film was wasted, and the movie was really rotten. Here in "The Informant" there was good, pointed, thoughtful writing. There was great acting on Damon's part, he really filled in the character. The actress who played his wife (Melanie Lynskey) did an excellent job in a thankless role, and in my opinion actually made the movie twice as interesting. Unfortunately two times one is only two, and I was looking for more.

Inglorious Basterds

2009-08-22T20:49:00.000-07:00

The trailer for this film suggests a gruesome romp through occupied France by a band of guerrilla Nazi hunters. The trailer doesn't lie, they're in here, but it isn't about them. This is a film about victims who don't give in to insurmountable odds, rather they face their persecutors head-on. As the film opens an evil is established. Then a solution to destroying that evil is presented. What follows are the details and the obstacles that are encountered along the way. It all seems to fit within the parameters of your typical war time drama. The story is even told in a completely chronological fashion, this hardly seems worth mentioning, except that this is a Quentin Tarantino film... Tarantino has tricked us royally with the trailer and the title of this film into thinking we're going to see an updated, blood soaked "Dirty Dozen". Instead we get a poignant film that examines the American fascination with adapting history to make us feel good about ourselves. Sure there's the occasional "Valley of Elah" and "Flags of Our Fathers" that demonize the American war effort, but overall war films have been made to make us feel good and proud about what we've done (or wish we'd done in this case). Tarantino has made a classic war picture, with a little bit of classic "Tarantino" splattered about for good measure. The characters, the locations, the story all could be right out of any other World War II film. It's what the characters say and what they do to each other that makes this stand apart. What Tarantino does wonderfully is that he gives us a sloppy mess of an idea, then he throws characters and storylines at us left and right. When it's all over though, the mess and clutter is forgotten, and the conclusion seems to be the only one possible. I think what I appreciated most was that although there were references to other Tarantino films, this film stands alone. "Pulp Fiction", "Reservoir Dogs" and "Jackie Brown" all are cut from the same cloth. "Kill Bill" and "Death Proof" are kind of limited by their source material. But here Tarantino takes on a genre that has an established, distinguished history and makes a film entirely his own.

District 9

2009-08-16T21:58:00.000-07:00

After a Summer of movies that disappointed, finally with "District 9" I have seen something imaginative and amazing. Neill Blomkamp directed and Peter Jackson produced a film that remembers how to thrill an audience. First the film sets the stage, and if you've seen the trailer, it to is a set-up. In the onset, characters are introduced, the basic premise is explained, the rules are established. Then all hell breaks loose. Now this isn't a re-invention of the wheel; this film does follow conventions set forth from the beginning of sci-fi action movie, but here it's done so well that it feels fresh and new. At the center of the film is the age old fable where the main character must undergo metamorphosis in order to repair his misconceptions. This story takes place in a setting that while Earthly, seems so foreign to us, making for an interesting mix of the familiar with what is alien. Then throw into the mix a seamless integration of what is real and what is special effects. I've mentioned before how bored I have become with effect driven movies, well here in "District 9" there are characters that are 100% effects, yet they are as much character and as much a presence as the people onscreen. I will admit that at times it is distracting, because I find myself marvelling at 'how id they do that?' But, for the most part it is just so well done that I was captivated by what was going on, instead of how. As I mentioned before, the real strength that Blomkamp and Jackson show is presentation; they know how good their effects are, but instead of overdoing it or showing-off, they take the time to get us interested, to get us anticipating what will happen next. Then they deliver. And when it was all over I felt like I came, I saw, and stuff got blowed-up real nice.

G.I. Joe

2009-08-09T21:34:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I will only be restating what has been said over and over again since this movie was announced, but this is my review, so I think it is my right. I grew up on G.I. Joe. As my brothers can attest to, I loved playing with these action figures and their vehicles whenever I could. We didn't have the big ones; the hovercraft or the aircraft carrier. We didn't have an army of vipers or even all the Dreadnaughts. What we didn't have we made up for with imagination. We built bases, secret underground hideouts and even rivers running down our neighbor's backyard. Storm Shadow was the ninja who spread fear into the hearts of all the Joes, until of course he himself turned good. I'm pretty sure Matt had a Hiss, which was the best tank ever made. Matt had The Baroness, I had Zarana, Matt had Scarlett, I had Lady Jay. Then there was The G.I. Joe movie, and I capitalized "The" because it was all we needed. The end all, be all, definitive action adventure movie about these characters that we loved to play with. Just watch The G.I. Joe movie to find out what Cobra Commander, Destro, Roadblock and Zartan are really like.

That unfortunately brings us to the new "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" movie. At least the let down had been prepared for, and I was able to approach it with little expectations. The story and the acting were actually the best thing here. Scarlett is played by Rachel Nichols, who was previously in the last season of Alias. I mention this only because this movie reminded me a little of an episode of Alias; it had alright production values, moved along pretty quickly, and the actors did what they could within the confines of the script. Beyond that, maybe it's just my glorified memory, but Snake Eyes is way cooler back in the day than he is in this movie. I guess I'm just tired of hitting, kicking, blocking and jumping as a character's full repertoire when it comes to fight choreography. Snake Eyes is a ninja! He doesn't just jump out of an airplane and start wailing on people. There should be like 15 people on the ground before you even hear the plane. Anyways, Jude and Jesse loved this movie, and I'm sure if they saw the stuff from my childhood they'd think it was lame. So sad. What sucks the most is that it should have been someone who loved the stuff from my childhood making this move, instead of someone trying to cash in on my memories. Capitalism at its finest I guess.

Where I'll be on October 16th

2009-08-08T17:17:00.000-07:00

Funny People

2009-08-02T20:52:00.000-07:00

This is by far the funniest Adam Sandler movie I've ever seen. So often in comedies I feel as thought the dialogue is being forced on me, like someone took a stand-up routine and tried to apply it to a real life situation. The reason this film works is that it's about stand-up comedians, and therefore the writing fits perfectly into the context of the story. Last night I thought that it would be fitting for me to write that "Funny People" is the "Annie Hall" of the current generation. That might be a little too strong of a compliment, but relatively speaking it's about as close as we're probably going to see. This is an introspective film, with characters who aren't afraid to examine themselves from the perspective that we see. The Sandler character specifically knows his weaknesses and fears. He doesn't change magically overnight, but we get the sense that his heart desires to lead him to become a better person. Sure, what slows this film down, as in any comedy, is an attempt to be meaningful. At the same time I think it's a smart move to make "Funny People" about both 'people' and 'funny'. I was interested that the filmmakers used Adam Sandler as they did, considering that I've seen him from very early in his career all the way through all his prime, his fame his attempt to be taken seriously. For him to take this role so head-on worked perfectly, and I admire him for it. Finally, as a warning, just as "Annie Hall" wasn't a family film, this isn't either. Keeping in step with the trend of comedies today, "Funny People" is funny without any real sense of boundaries. Perhaps comedians have always been on the edge, saying things that we all think but social standards keep us from saying. Is shocking people, or talking about private matter necessary to make them laugh? I was just trying to think of some Biblical examples of humor, obviously my favorite is pretty disgusting and comes at someones expense; Ehud stabs King Eglon, who is so fat that the handle of the sword gets covered up by the flab. Then to make things even funnier, the Kings servants don't find out until it's too late because they think the King is just taking time going to the bathroom... I'm sure many of you can come up for different reasons that this account is included in such detail in the Bible. As for me, it is either the worst kind of humiliation against the King and his descendants, or it's just plain bathroom humor. I'm not trying to justify all the humor in "Funny People" with this example, I guess I just think it's interesting that there is this base level at which many people are amused, and if there are examples in God's Word, can it all be bad?

Monsters vs Aliens, Ping Pong Playa and The Hurt Locker

2009-07-26T14:39:00.001-07:00

I got to see "Monsters vs Aliens" with my three kids and my brother Jesse and my sister Jill. This was a fun movie for all ages, with the visuals and action for the little kids and the humor and cultural references for the bigger kids. If Matt hasn't seen this yet, I'm sure he'll love what the President (as played by Stephen Colbert) does to try to communicate with the aliens. This was a Dreamworks movie, and it had some of the feel of the Shrek series, but I liked it better. It seemed to have more depth and life flowing than Shrek, if you know what I mean. So many of these computer animated movies seem so flat and bland, maybe that's just the consequence of being compared to Pixar films. "Monsters vs Aliens" is on the high side of sub-Pixar movies, so it's doing about as good as can be expected. I guess what does disappoint me about a movie like this is how close it comes to being so much better... There are moments, there are ideas, there are characters that are really interesting or funny. But as a whole it felt more like a long Cartoon Network show than a feature length animated film. Maybe that's what some people like, but I was hoping for more, like I got from "Up".

"Ping Pong Playa" didn't make it to any theaters near me, and I don't know if I would have given it a chance even if it had. It's one of those impulse Netflix viewings that paid off. The star of this movie is a young Chinese American man who doesn't want to grow up, but desperately wants to play in the NBA, like Yao. Unfortunately he is neither tall, nor is he any good at basketball. He has always been overshadowed by his older brother, who is a kind of local Ping Pong hero. His parents are very disappointed in him, and he doesn't really have anything going his way. What balances this all out is that he's got lots of energy and a colorful personality. When his brother gets injured weeks before the big Ping Pong tournament we see right away where the plot of this film is taking us. In this case that's not a bad thing. I can handle a predictable movie, as long as its entertaining in the way it gets to the inevitable conclusion. I also liked how this movie walked the fine line between funny and inappropriate, and succeeded in remaining funny. The main character uses that Urban vernacular, but perfectly placed basketball bounces protect our ears from the harmful descriptive verbs. The movie also takes what could have been a one-idea gag, and creates a thoughtful story and set of supporting characters which save it from being shallow comedy.

Rob and I saw "The Hurt Locker" at our local art house theater. Ben had given me the heads-up on this one, and although I had heard good things about it, I didn't really know much about the story. Well, there isn't much of a story, this is more of a character study, which was alright by me. When I saw "In The Valley of Elah" a year or so ago I had that feeling that I was being taken advantage of. You know, when a movie gives you a set-up and introduces you to characters and locations, but before long you realize that everything is just a device to preach at you and impose a certain point of view. "Elah" was all about how war is hell, and there's nothing good about it, there's never any good reason to go to war, and the outcome is always ever bad... At least the movie had an opinion I guess instead of being empty and hopeless like some. Well, back to "The Hurt Locker". Here we see our men on the ground in Iraq, dealing with the day to day, reacting according to emotion, training, minds and hearts. We are following a team of demolition experts, on the prowl for roadside explosives. (Here I'd like to say "hello" our friendly NSA operative). This film had some of those "Apocalypse Now" moments where the stuff that happens is so horrifying that it's almost surreal. The movie never gets to heavy though, it's more of a documentary in the way it presents the information, but a very intimate one, in which we really get to see the Marines in their highs and lows. I think I've seen enough action movies, and dramas with war as a backdrop. I prefer to see a film like this that specializes in examining one aspect or idea concerning something that is real, but worlds away for me.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

2009-07-19T15:29:00.000-07:00

Rob and I went to see this film on Wednesday evening, no midnight showings for us old guys. We've gone to see most (if not all) of the Harry Potter films together and tend to have the same reaction as time has gone on. The first film was awesome, and a great introduction to the world and characters of Harry. The second film seemed to continue the energy from the first but wasn't quite as good. "The Prisoner of Azkaban" was a great film, a standalone work that would have been a great film independent of any previous or subsequent installments. The other two movies kind of fizzled, and are proof that you can have great sets, good actors, amazing effects etc. but if you director isn't up to the task, all is in vain. I give you this summary in order to set a context for my review of the newest Harry Potter film "Half Blood Prince". This film gets it mostly right, not "Prisoner of Azkaban" right, but pretty good. The Three major threads; memories, couples and encroaching evil all are covered well. The filmmakers do a decent job of establishing a mission for the film and then accomplishing it within the allotted time. Here's my major problem with the majority of this series; movies that are produced by the author and are designed to please the readers are doomed to fail as great films. I can always feel when I've been trapped within the confines of a book. Films should be someone's imagining of what they took away from the reading experience and never an attempt to transpose the page to the screen. I think that in 35 or 40 years when a fan of the books goes on to remake the Harry Potter series into films, then and only then will we get great adaptations. Until then I will admit that I enjoyed the seemingly endless awkward love triangles, the memory smoke in a bowl and the witch that even creeps out Snape. And at the risk of stepping over a line I will pose this final question; Harry Potter has a chance to further his relationship with Hermione, and doesn't take it (now I haven't read the last book, so don't ruin it for me) so does this prove that Harry really is gay?

Ice Age 3 and Public Enemies

2009-07-02T22:29:00.000-07:00

Aravis and I went to see "Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" last night. She mentioned beforehand that since Jude got to see Transformers in IMAX she thought she should get popcorn with her movie... she's such a con. The chemistry between the characters, and the humor is what makes this series just good enough to recommend. Unfortunately so much about Ice Age is dull and boring. The colors, the music (or lack thereof) and the settings are just so drab and lifeless. Fortunately the characters are unique, and kind of have grown on me, and the the humor (especially Scratte) are enough to almost keep me awake. Alas this movie did not quite meet the sleeping standard (as in it caused me to fall asleep) but it was very near the end, so it was mostly good. Also, as an interesting aside, if you turn your 3D glasses upside down, the objects that are meant to jump out at you actually drop into the background, and the backgrounds come directly into the foreground.

Jess and I went to see "Public Enemies" tonight. Let me start with my primary criticism of the film; the camera work. The whole film was of that digital, handheld quality (perhaps because it was digital handheld). I completely understand the draw to this kind of filmmaking, but it was not fitting in the context of this film. At one point, later in the film there is a shootout at a hunting lodge; this scene felt like something you might see on low budget television. That was not the kind of feel that this film deserves. Unfortunately for the most part I found the camera style to be so distracting that it did take away from my appreciation of the rest of the film, but I'll try to put it all aside for the next few moments. I really liked Johnny Depp's portrayal of John Dillinger. He brought a subtle flair to this role, making Dillinger a gangster from all those famous old gangster films, with a modern introspective flavor. I also liked Christian Bale's character, an FBI agent on the trail of Dillinger. I felt like we didn't get to see enough of him or get to know him well enough, but what we did see was once again subtle yet very effective. The director Michael Mann is wonderful at conveying relationships and ideas without insulting our intelligence as an audience. Great actors and a great director don't explain stuff to you, they show you. This film contained all the aspects of a great film, yet failed to convince me that it was great. Perhaps there were too many reminders of "Heat" or maybe I spent too much time thinking about "The Last of the Mohicans" as the characters chased each other through the woods. I shouldn't be thinking about a directors other films when I'm supposed to be watching his current film. Is that my fault or his? I blame him.

The Taking of Pelham 123 and Year One

2009-06-29T21:33:00.000-07:00

When Travolta and Denzel make a movie together shouldn't it be like one of the best movies you've seen in a long time? Sometimes I wonder if these actors get together and decide to just give 75%. How can the guy who played such an entertaining bad guy in "Face/Off" be so boring here? How can the man who made us cry with his pure spirit in "Glory", put me to sleep in a movie like this? (I must say that I didn't actually fall asleep here, this wasn't quite as boring as the action scenes in "Iron Man"). I think I wanted to see this film for four reasons; Tony Scott directs, Washington and Travolta act, and the preview had a good hook. That hook maybe could have been the difference, but alas, it was just the same old formula heist movie. Scott made a movie with a lot of flashy editing, fast trains, intense close-ups and a lot of subway sound effects. Denzel and Travolta played Good Denzel and Bad Travolta as though they were still in the midst of the writer's strike and were showing solidarity for their fellow filmmakers. And the hook wasn't a hook at all, merely a lame twist on a worn-out genre. And "The Taking of Pelham 123" was by far and away the better of the two movies I'm reviewing this evening...

Did I really think "Year One" was worth seeing? In retrospect I'm not really sure what was going through my head. I think I only laughed once during the whole movie, and that was in response to a reaction from a fellow filmgoer behind me. After the movie was over I realized that the even the parts I thought were funny parts in the trailer turned out not to really be funny at all. Some of you are probably thinking; "What funny parts in the trailer?" ....Exactly!
Jack Black wasn't really funny when he needs to be really funny. The story was stupid, I mean really stupid when it really needed to be funny. Hank Azaria had a funny take on his character, but within the context of the film, it just wasn't funny enough. Perhaps you get my concern, when a comedy isn't funny, it has failed to accomplish its' purpose and thereby was a compete waste of my time.

Transformers 2

2009-06-25T21:14:00.001-07:00

The first Transformers movie was exactly what fun Summer blockbusters are supposed to be. It was huge, action packed, funny and way over the top. Micheal Bay, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox were perfect together, and the Transformers themselves were just plain awesome. Now of course I didn't say "Transformers" was a great film or anything, but it was great for what it was. Now comes "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", and unfortunately this movie upholds the long running tradition of sequels not quite living up to the level of the original. "Transformers 2" has got everything the first one has, even more, but it's not enough. (I must interject here and note that Jude would disagree with me, and thinks that we need to get this movie as soon as it comes out on video, and that "Transformers" is now "boring") This time we get more of everything; more dogs, more Transformers, more girls, more explosions... but it's just not as fun. Now I know what you're saying, I know that you already knew this and wonder why I seem surprised. Well, I'm not surprised, maybe it's just the kid in me that always hopes to just be blown away every time I see a movie like this. Alas, I am no longer a child and therefore I must be disappointed by "Transformers 2". Let me say a few more things though, just to make some side comments: I really did like some of the new characters, and some of the nods to Transformers I actually played with (the construction vehicles for example). I liked the cultural references, specifically Bumblebee's use of movie clips to express himself. I don't understand why the Micheal Bay decided to have the whole Megan Fox/Shia LaBeouf relationship-in-question storyline, it seemed so overdone and out of place. And finally I think it's interesting that in the first "Transformers" President Bush is onscreen, yet although President Obama gets a mention, only his bumbling Security Advisor gets any camera time. Is the fact that his Advisor is such an idiot a knock against the President? Or, was that not the intent at all and the filmmakers didn't want to cast any light on the President at all? Discuss amongst yourselves...

Imagine That

2009-06-21T14:56:00.000-07:00

I'm taking each of my children out to a movie this Summer, just me and one child. Ashley got to go first and we went to see "Imagine That". I must admit that I haven't been impressed by any of Eddie Murphy's "family" films, and for the most part actually have avoided them. I was pleasantly surprised, Ashley and I really enjoyed this movie together. Sure it follows some very predictable plot conventions, but the way it gets there is very interesting and refreshing. Eddie Murphy plays a successful investment advisor who doesn't have time for his seven year old daughter (played by Yara Shahidi). His daughter developes some imaginary friends, apparently to make up for the lack of relationship with her father. Murphy's character takes notice of these imaginary friends when they start giving him excellent stock advice when he needs it most. Of course the film is really about this father/daughter relationship, and the goal is to straighten Murphy's character out so that he will put his family before his career. What made this film stand out fer me is that it didn't take the easy way out or shortcuts to solving the problems at the root of the story. So often we don't see that we have shortcomings or priorities that are out of whack. When they are brought to our attention it is often difficult to know where to start. And when we're on the road to recovery it doesn't mean there won't be hiccups or hurt along the way. This film approached these ideas in a way that felt right, without being too Hallmark, or too abrasive. I liked how the daughter couold get her feelings hurt, but forgive her father so freely, that's a wonderful thing about children. Eddie Murphy's father character was actually more stubborn, and it seemed to take longer for him to come around to being the man he should be. That seemed to ring all too true.
I also must say that all the Beatles covers, and the theme of Beatles music throughout benefitted the my overall perspective on the film. As with "I Am Legend" and "Wall-e" from a year or so ago, whenever a movie borrows a musical them (and does it well) it contributes so much texture to the film. Other artists have already created something that now gives a cultural reference to the new material. "Imagine That" does a lot right, and it was a fun evening with my oldest daughter.

Eminem vs U2

2009-06-07T22:47:00.000-07:00

I'm no usually one for writing about music, actually I am always interested in what my brothers have to say and mostly take their advice on such matters. I recently listened to Emenim's latest album and was struck by something that I wanted to share with anyone who cares to continue reading...

Eminem connects with his audience in a way that no one else has been able to. It is one of the basest, most raw and probably one of the saddest connections I've ever experienced. We live in a fallen world. Many around us have been the victims of horrible abuse. Many of us are guilty of hatred and shameful behaviour. All of us are sinners. Eminem addresses all of this so directly, so honestly. When he hates someone and wishes he could kill them, he doesn't beat around the bush, he pours his heart out about it. Don't get me wrong, I am not complimenting Eminem on this response, on the contrary, I find this to be a very destructive kind of music. At the same time, just like "The Godfather", "Pulp Fiction" and "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" isn't it kind of exciting to experience someone else's life for a while, to live on the wrong side of the law?

The reason I chose to compare Eminem to U2 in this little review is this; both have recently released new albums, and I find that in different ways I am drawn to both. The conclusion I have reached is this; Eminem's time is up, his novelty has worn off. Eminem struck a chord, and continues to strike the same one over and over again. It's good to know that he's out there, and I think it is important to deal with the issues he addresses. There is hurt and suffering going on in the homes around us and we should not ignore it. At the same time U2, with their album "No Line on the Horizon" sees the same world, sees the same suffering and despair; yet they have hope. Maybe there isn't a straight direct message in their album as to where that hope comes from, or maybe there is? Personally that is what I take away from the album each time I hear it. I would recommend avoiding the Eminem, and giving U2 a chance if you haven't already. There's enough fallen world all around us already.

Up

2009-06-03T20:43:00.000-07:00

Last night Jess, Jude, Ashley, Aravis and I all had the pleasure of seeing Disney/Pixar's newest film, "Up". It is truly amazing how beautiful a well made film can be. I could go through the list of positives, how "Up" has great visuals, vivid colors, a heartwarming story, a unique premise, good humor, interesting characters, etc, etc, etc. I found it to be more entertaining than "Wall-e", but then that film had a main character who couldn't talk, whereas here even the pets can talk, so "Up" has an unfair advantage. The powers that be at Pixar seem to understand the fundementals of what makes a great film, and they once again have delivered. That is not to say that they have come up with a formula, because formula is boring. No, they realize that at the core of a great film there must be heart and purpose. Then there has to be a story, an explination for the heart and purpose being onscreen. The characters are just as important as the story, and the must be well defined, interesting characters. And finally, imagination is what ties everything together. The audience needs to see things that captivate our minds and fill us with wonder. "Up" has good old fashioned ideas and feelings, presented to us in a way that makes it fresh and new. This was a good film.

Terminator Salvation

2009-05-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

"Terminator 2" is one of those defining films, that really has changed our expectations of what an action film should be. Of course there is action, beautiful stunning action. There are also characters that you come to care about, otherwise the action is empty, and leaves you feeling unsatisfied. The story is easy to follow and moves along at a good pace, filled with memorable dialogue and a convincing enough explination for all the action we're seeing. "Terminator Salvation" is not quite "Terminator 2", but the filmmakers had the right idea. Perhaps McG, the director was on course to destroy the franchise until there was an internet fanboy uprising. Hopefully we'll never have to know for sure. Regardless, the final product contained at least the spirit of what makes the Terminator series great. That is of course man's struggle with machine, his dependence, fear and ultimately victory over his creation. McG successfully introduces us to a new question; what if the machine and the man become inseperable? I liked this aspect of the film, and when the thrill of special effects wears off, the ideas the film delves into will stick with me. The effect were great though. Especially the human interaction with the terminators. Blowing stuff up doesn't impress me much, but having a robot pulling off Christian Bale's boot and crawling after him with only one thought on his computer chip mind, now that was some good stuff. I also liked the early scene in the helicopter which seemed to be one continuous shot in which a whole lot of stuff went down. There were some things that I didn't like. Not all the action fit the movie. Sometimes the action was so excessive and unnecessary that it jolted me out of the illusion of the film and made me remember that I was watching another action movie. Even the most over the top scenes need to progress the plot. "T2" did this amazingly, "T4" not so much. The other thing I thought was kind of strange was that I found that Christian Bale's character, John Connor, wan't all that intriguing. I understand that the film wasn't just about him, but he seemed almost to be a side character. I felt this way a little during "The Dark Knight" as well. Of course that film is about so much more than Batman. It was about friends and foes who contributed to define Batman. In "Terminator Salvation" sure there's the terminator who's struggling with living as a machine trapped in a human's body, but that thread is followed too much, leaving Connor as almost a sidekick. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, maybe my dissapointment is that we finally get a wothy actor as Connor, and it seems to be a little wasted. Overall though I really enjoyed the film, and I especially like that I got to watch it with four of my brothers. Seeing a movie with my brothers makes any movie better.

Star Trek, Angels and Demons

2009-05-18T21:30:00.000-07:00

What's best about Star Trek is how it presents ideas. Perhaps it's that hundreds of years from now men will be struggling with the same exact problems that makes the series ring true. Of course Star Trek as a television show had us relying more on our imagination due to budget constraints, whereas this new film seems to be limitless. This could have been a stumbling point, but I felt as though J.J. Abrams was able to keep all the human element alive while at the same time blowing me away with spectacular visuals, seemless effects and top notch action. Now I don't claim to be a huge Star Trek fan, so this next statement won't hold as much weight as it would if I were a Trekkie, but this film "Star Trek" was a great introduction to the Star Trek characters and universe. If you haven't ever watched Star Trek before, I think this film could be a fun way to discover Star Trek for the first time. Then once you've gotten past the dated costumes, effects, haircuts of the original series, you would find a rich, imaginitive, thoughtful and entertaining show with plenty of cultural influence. An added benefit is that there seems to alway be something to talk about after watching some good Star Trek.

"Angels and Demons" was kind of my way of giving Ron Howard and Tom Hanks another chance. Perhaps it was because I had recently read the book, or maybe because it was not so good, but I did not enjoy thier take on "The Da Vinci Code". The book was written pretty much as a screenplay, kind of like a movie made out of words. It wasn't a good book, but it kept my attention and had some fun parts. Of course it also crossed a pretty serious line, which if it had been any other line may not have bothered me, but well this isn't a review of that film or book, so what am I doing? Anyways, "Angels and Demons" had some baggage, but I was hoping for the best. I was peasantly surprised with the outcome overall. It was a decent film, with good acting, in a great location with plenty of atmosphere. The location made the movie. Howard did a good job of establishing that Vatican City has a rich history with plenty of skeletons in its closet. The statues, the paintings, the carpet, all contributed to create a fitting setting for what basically came down to a scavenger hunt. The weakness of the film were the technical aspects. I guess if you're going to come up with clues and riddles, they might as well be interesting instead of just having a statue pointing his/her finger to the next piece of the puzzle. Indiana Jones got to see that 'X" marks the spot. From now on it shouldn't be that easy. I did think that overall Howard handled the religious aspect of the movie rather carefully if not neutrally. The Cardinal actually seemed to be one of the strongest and most reasonable characters without quavering in his faith. Of course if I were writing for Focus on the Family I could easily find the twenty-three things that are offensive to my beliefs, but then I believe that they shouldn't play commercials at the theater, so I was offended before the film even began.

Knowing, Fast and Furious, Wolverine and Pulp Fiction

2009-05-10T21:07:00.000-07:00

I have an Algebra final to take this coming week, but other than that I'm done with school for a while. I haven't seen as many movies, or obviously written about them for quite some time. Hopefully this will change very shortly. Let's do some catch-up and make a clarification...

"Knowing" felt like Mormon propaganda pretty much from start to finish. I don't know if it was, but it sure felt like it. If this is true, I must say that their special effects are way better than Christian special effects. What's up with that?

"Fast and Furious" was entertaining, not "The Fast and the Furious" entertaining mind you, but entertaining just the same. Jess and I got to see this movie together and what can I say, it had Vin Diesel doing the stuff we like to see him do best. So if you liked the first one, then you'll probably enjoy this one. If you thought the first one was over-the-top, poorly written, corny, shallow, mindless pop entertainment, well, you're right but it's better than a kick in the head.

"Wolverine" was a mistake. Why would the make a film about the origin of the best X-Men character first? Let's just say I'm not planning on seeing the Cyclops movie when it comes out. As far as the movie itself, I enjoyed it for what it was. It didn't have the depth of the first X-Men film, and it wasn't as interesting (mostly because so many characters were missing). Yet, as a back story I thought it was put together quite well. I liked Wolverine's relationship with his brother, and I liked the impressions that people made on him along the way. Of course there were quite a few cliche moments, and some of the supporting characters (Gambit) were just plain bad. Hopefully "Wolverine" represents the weakest of the Summer blockbusters.

And now on to the final film I wanted to talk a little about. As many of you know "Pulp Fiction" is one of my favorite films, and I use it as a measure by which I judge many other films I see. Of course this presents somewhat of a dilemma when I attempt to explain the merits of "Pulp Fiction". I realize that "Pulp Fiction" is a bad movie for many reasons. There isn't a moral character anywhere to be seen. The language is enough to peel paint off the port side of a
three-thousand ton crane barge. Violence is shrugged off as just an everyday occurrence. And other things happen on and offscreen that are better left unsaid. I think I'm doing a pretty good job of convincing myself and hopefully you just how bad this film is. So, no matter how many rated R films I've said were good, and have proclaimed to be great films, please just disregard all of that until further notice...

Watchmen

2009-03-06T02:04:00.000-08:00

Allow me to use a metaphor when I say that "Watchmen" is the Diet Pepsi of super hero movies. It's packaged all nice and flashy. It fizzes like it should, and seems like it should be alright. Alas it's not even Pepsi, merely a shadowy reflection of a copy of something good.

Zack Snyder shows his depth here, and as in "300" he comes up seriously lacking. Too bad, he's got a lot of potential with the storyline, characters and setting. I liked Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach. I liked the stuff on Mars and I really liked the opening music video. But as it went on I felt more and more dissatisfied. As Jude noted when he saw the preview; "is that Batman?" Unfortunately not. It was Nite Owl. I know what you're thinking; "Nite Owl? Who the.. who in the world is that?" I could explain, but then I don't really want to.

I'm sitting here at the computer, just after 3 O'clock, listening to Dylan trying to recreate the good part of the movie, and I realize that my thoughts may not be as clear as one would like. Am I asking too much to want a film that is thoughtful and layered? Do I ask for too much when I want characters with character? Is it wrong for me to think "The Fantastic 4" was in many ways a better movie than this? If Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder get into a fistfight who wins? I think we all know the answer to that.

The Best Film of 2008

2009-02-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately the best film of 2008 wasn't nominated for tonight's Academy Awards. I must begin by saying that this time around I haven't seen all the nominees in the category of Best Picture. Actually I've only seen two, "Benjamin Button" and "Slumdog". That being said, my pick "The Dark Knight" deserves recognition before either of those two, and based on what I know about the other nominees I'm pretty confident in my choice. "The Dark Knight" is everything a great film should be. It has dynamic, interesting characters. It has plot that is well constructed, layered with complex depth. It is a visually amazing acheivement, coupled with a great score and rich sound. There is a purpose and meaning that extends beyond he screen, making it more than a visceral experience, allowing it to have relevance outside the theater.

When I first saw the film last Summer I was of course swayed by my anticipation and all the emotions that come with being excited about something new. I was not dissapointed, but perhaps I was a little distracted. I have seen the film three times since, (including once quite recently at home) and the subsequent viewings and the time that has passed have left me with an even greater appreciation for the film and the performances contained within.

I should start first with the director Christopher Nolan. He is one of my favorite directors, and maybe one of the most underappreciated. Starting back with "Memento", then "Batman Begins" and of course "The Prestige", he has made some of the most interesting films in the last ten years. In "The Dark Knight" he takes what could of been a huge mess of characters and plot, and is able to tie everything together so beautifully that only later to you realize how grand the scope of this undertaking was. Seriously, by the time we get to the Harvey Dent transformation, that was a whole movie right there. But Nolan gives us the sequel too. He's not interested in teasing us and dividing a film for box office receipts. He realizes that the second and first acts of this story are so dependent on each other that they should not be seperated. Next I'm going to talk about the actors, but really Nolan must be given credit there too. He saw the potential where so many of us feared disaster. Wrong casting can destroy a film, but Nolan knew what he was doing. Of course I am especially impressed by his take on the Joker. What is amazing is that I would have suspected that there would be temptation to add bits of perfomance that didn't work to pay tribute to Heath Ledger. But I think that Nolan must have done the opposite. There is probably even more footage that we'll never see because Nolan crafted the perfect Joker edit, and it is an incredible tribute.

This isn't Christian Bale's movie. This movie belongs to Bale, Ledger, Eckhart, Caine, Oldman, Gyllenhaal and Freeman. Gary Oldman is a great actor, he can play larger than life roles. He's probably one of the scariest monsters to ever inhabit the screen. Yet here he is so real as a man of conviction, fears, hope and sadness. Michael Caine is Batman's inner voice of reason. The relationship has such abruptness and tenderness. Ralrely do films about father figures have so much depth as the relationship shown and implied between Caine and Bale. The only problem I have with Maggie Gyllenhaal is they should have known better and put her in the first film as well. Aside from that minor distraction, she is also an actress who is able to make you feel that you know her really well without actually having that much screen time. Doesn't Morgan Freeman make you wish that you knew him personally and he could just be you friend? Aaron Eckhart was perfectly cast across from Christian Bale. Here he is able to hold his own, and convincingly set up the inevitable conclusion. Bale is Batman. Alright, let me get this out of the way though... Talking in the deeper voice might not be the airtight disguise that Batman should be going for. Bruce Wayne dons the Batsuit, creates elaborate alibis, and has a secrest lair, yet when altering his voice he falls back on just lowering it an octave? I'd almost rather see him carry the Batpad and Batpen so he could pass notes. Couldn't he afford a voice synthesizer or something? Anyways it's a minor gripe I know, but it bothers me nevertheless. So back to Christian Bale. He doesn't get the central role that he had in the previous film, but thats alright. He plays his part consistently and maybe more than anything else provides a worthy opponent to the villains. And then there's Heath Ledger's Joker. The line in the interrogation room where he compares Batman with himself is so telling. His varying explinations of his scarred face. His bodylanguage and facial expression in different situations. His sense of humour. The magic trick, and his setup thereof. Ledger created a great film performance that is scary, funny and sad.

"The Dark Knight" isn't going to win Best Picture tonight, but in my heart it already has. Was that corny enough for you?

The Wrestler

2009-02-06T23:09:00.000-08:00

Alright, I don't usually do this, but I'm going to begin with some personal venting. It's late Wednesday night (early Thursday really) and I just wrapped up some homework, which by the way is really kicking my, well let's just say I'm having too much fun. Anyways, with work, homework and all the important stuff in my lfe movies have taken a bit of a back burner. Now I guess I know what it's like to be like everyone else. I went to see "The Wrestler" like over two weeks ago, and I'm just now getting around to writing about it. I wanted to see a couple other Academy Award nominated films, but all the ones I wanted to see have left the theaters, which kind of sucks.

"The Wrestler" wasn't really anyhting to write home about (maybe that's why I haven't). It was a good enough character study, and Mickey Rourke once again establishes himself as a good actor. I did like the chemistry between him and Marisa Tomei, actually come to think of it maybe I just really liked the chemistry of Marisa Tomei. I think I wrote a while back about Darren Aronofsky being a really interesting director, and that I would much rather watch anything he makes than the standard Hollywood fare. Well, that's still true, although this film makes me wonder if there's a new genre which could be called "standard indie fare". I'm getting a little sick and tired of Hollywood thinking that as long as there isn't an actual professinal camerman, or there isn't a happy ending, or if the characters bought their clothes at a thrift store, I'm just going to accept it as real and fresh and interesting. Well, I'm not. Perhaps this isn't the best time to write this review. Well, too late. Just let me get some rest, and next time I will write a thoughful review of the film I think deserves to win Best Picture this coming Sunday.

Defiance

2009-01-18T10:32:00.000-08:00

"Defiance" is a good film. Unlike last years horrible "Atonement", this film is about real people and their struggles durring a real moment in history, instead of using history as a backdrop for a shallow soap opera. Edward Zwick has directed a film that follows the lives of four brothers as they attempt to survive, help others and fight back during the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Zwick can make great, powerful films, as he did with "Glory". He can also get so close, then dissapoint, as he did in "The Last Samurai". Here he never achives the greatness of the first half of "Samurai", but then since he never gets so good, it never seems to get so bad either. Zwick is consistent here, following the brothers in thier victories and failures. I liked that he portrayed each characters strenghts and weaknesses, not merely as plot gimmicks, but as real people. Sometimes a quick temper will save lives, other times it could be your (or your friend's) downfall. In retrospect there is quite a bit in this film to appreciate, yet it never achieved the power of a "Schindler's List". I realize that's a pretty tall order, so I'll give this film credit where it's due, and finish by saying it was a good film, good acting, direction, cinemotagraphy, accurate weapons etc. But, Zwick has more to him than this and I'm looking forward to his next truly great film.

Gran Torino

2009-01-11T15:44:00.000-08:00

Clint Eastwood has snuck up on me and become one of my favorite directors. His films are consistently good, have more depth than the average Hollywood fare and each one is unique. Just look at his last five films; "Gran Torino", "Changeling", "Letters from Iwo Jima", "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Million Dollar Baby". Even "Iwo Jima" and "Flags" which took place in the same place and time were two completely different films. I didn't really like "Flags" or "Million Dollar Baby", but they had thier strengths. By the way, "Million Dollar Baby" was a good film, I just didn't like it.

Now Eastwood has taken an character he's portrayed before, and taken a good hard look inside. He's an old unhappy man who growls when he's not making racial slurs, and drinking beer when he's not growling. He speaks his mind and looses his temper. He is controlled and violent. There's nothing lovable on his exterior, but if you give him a chance, or if he gives you a chance, there is a heart beating inside his chest. Eastwood plays this Bogart style character perfectly, and his performance and dialogue is right on. Unfortunately I found some of the supporting actors and the lines they spoke to be sub-par. It's amazing how quickly the illusion of reality can be broken with some bad acting. All in all though, I thought the film was another great achievement for Eastwood. I especially enjoyed the moments when Eastwood's character is trying to teach a kid how men talk and interact with each other. Moments like that transcend a perfomance and become real.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-05T21:55:00.000-08:00

This film had the potential to be a great fable. The possibilities that someone might have if born really old, aging backwards, becoming younger and stronger, that story is boundless. "Benjamin Button" takes a much simpler approach. Basically what we learn is that whether you're born young or born old, you really should live life one day at a time, being happy with what you've been given, and appreciating life to the fullest. Benjamin Button starts life old, living with old people. The ones he comes to know, be friends with and love all die off, while he grows younger and healthier. Then, as he comes into the prime of his life, he meets the girl he wants to love in the middle of her life. Of course, he continues to youthify while she gets old and wrinkly, bring to a quick halt their life together. Benjamin doesn't get many breaks, and when he does they seem short lived. It sucks getting younger. I almost think that David Fincher (the director) is just messing with our heads (Surprise, surprise). It's almost like he's saying that it doesn't matter who you are, where you're from or what you do; life is pointless fo all. Everyone wants what they can't have, and when they get it, it's not so great. Well, whatever Fincher's message, the special effects were amazing. I want tos see the making-of for this film, and it better include specifics on when computer effects and makeup were used. Especially impressive are effects where Brad Pitt is super young again (like 17 or so). We saw him early in his career not much different from this, and thanks to gifted artists, we see him young again.

Slumdog Millionaire and Valkyrie

2008-12-28T15:46:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-27T15:43:00.001-08:00

"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

2008-11-15T08:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-09T17:31:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-02T11:09:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-10-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-05T21:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-14T15:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-12T23:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-16T09:36:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-14T21:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-26T21:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-18T07:33:00.000-07:00

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 controdict 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 penty 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 seperate 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, rutheless, creepy, funny, unpredicatable 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

2008-07-13T18:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-01T19:01:00.002-07:00

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

2008-07-01T19:01:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-01T19:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-29T10:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-13T22:16:00.000-07:00

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?