The Fantastic Mr. Fox (and another venting session)

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

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

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

Invictus and Sherlock Holmes

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

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

Avatar

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

A Christmas Carol

Alright, here goes...

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

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

A Serious Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Abiding Citizen

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

Where The Wild Things Are

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

Zombieland

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

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

Julie and Julia

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

The Informant

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

Inglorious Basterds

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

District 9

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

G.I. Joe

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

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

Where I'll be on October 16th

Funny People

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

Monsters vs Aliens, Ping Pong Playa and The Hurt Locker

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

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

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

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

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

Ice Age 3 and Public Enemies

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

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

The Taking of Pelham 123 and Year One

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

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

Transformers 2

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

Imagine That

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

Eminem vs U2

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

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

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

Up

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

Terminator Salvation

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

Star Trek, Angels and Demons

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

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

Knowing, Fast and Furious, Wolverine and Pulp Fiction

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

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

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

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

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

Watchmen

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

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

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

The Best Film of 2008

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

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

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

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

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

The Wrestler

Alright, I don't usually do this, but I'm going to begin with some personal venting. It's late Wednesday night (early Thursday really) and I just wrapped up some homework, which by the way is really kicking my, well let's just say I'm having too much fun. Anyways, with work, homework and all the important stuff in my life movies have taken a bit of a back burner. Now I guess I know what it's like to be like everyone else. I went to see "The Wrestler" like over two weeks ago, and I'm just now getting around to writing about it. I wanted to see a couple other Academy Award nominated films, but all the ones I wanted to see have left the theaters, which kind of sucks. "The Wrestler" wasn't really anything to write home about (maybe that's why I haven't). It was a good enough character study, and Mickey Rourke once again establishes himself as a good actor. I did like the chemistry between him and Marisa Tomei, actually come to think of it maybe I just really liked the chemistry of Marisa Tomei. I think I wrote a while back about Darren Aronofsky being a really interesting director, and that I would much rather watch anything he makes than the standard Hollywood fare. Well, that's still true, although this film makes me wonder if there's a new genre which could be called "standard indie fare". I'm getting a little sick and tired of Hollywood thinking that as long as there isn't an actual professional cameraman, or there isn't a happy ending, or if the characters bought their clothes at a thrift store, I'm just going to accept it as real and fresh and interesting. Well, I'm not. Perhaps this isn't the best time to write this review. Well, too late. Just let me get some rest, and next time I will write a thoughtful review of the film I think deserves to win Best Picture this coming Sunday.

Defiance

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

Gran Torino

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

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

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

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

Slumdog Millionaire and Valkyrie

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

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

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

Australia

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

Quantum of Solace

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

RocknRolla

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

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

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

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

Changeling

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

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

W.

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

Appaloosa and Body of Lies

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

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