The Simpsons

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

Ratatouille

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

Harry Potter 5 vs Indiana Jones

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

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

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

Die Hard 4 and Transformers

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

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

Surf's Up

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

Fantastic 4 Part 2 and My Impression Of The Summer

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

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

Ocean's 13 and Focus on the Family

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

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

Pirates of the Caribbean 3

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

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

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

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

12 Angry Men and Spiderman 3

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

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

Amazing Grace

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

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

The Invisible and The Sugarland Express

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

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

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

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

Grindhouse

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

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

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

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

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

The Lookout

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

TMNT and Shooter

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

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

300

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

Black Snake Moan

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

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

Ghostrider and Oscar Afterthoughts

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

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

The Last King of Scotland

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

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

"Transformers" is going to be awesome!

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

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

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

Little Miss Sunshine and Children of Men

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

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

Babel

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

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

Letters From Iwo Jima

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

Open Season and Perfume

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

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

It's A Wonderful Life

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

Blood Diamond

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

The Good Shepherd

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

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

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

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

Rocky Balboa

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

Apocalypto

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

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

The Fountain and The Pick of Destiny

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

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

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

Harsh Times and Deja Vu and Deja Vu

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

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

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

Casino Royale

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

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

Luther

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

Marie Antoinette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Departed

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

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

The Illisionist

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

Snakes on a Plane

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

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

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

3Fast3Furious: Tokyo Drift

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

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

Nacho Libre

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

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

The Prarie Home Companion

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

Scent of a Woman

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

Cars

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

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

X-Men 3

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

The DaVinci Code

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

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

Mission Impossible III

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

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

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

United 93

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

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

The Sentinel

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

Lucky Number Slevin

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

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

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