Jurassic Park and Oblivion

This will be an unfair review, in that it's probably impossible for you to act upon the information contained within.  This review is only really helpful for those who had good enough sense to see "Jurassic Park" and "Oblivion" without first consulting me.  The reason for this, is that both of these films were recently shown in the IMAX format, but have most likely been bumped in your area by a little movie called "Iron Man 3" (by the way, I'm going to pretend that "The Avengers" was "Iron Man 2").

20 years ago, as school was closing for Summer, I went to see "Jurassic Park" with my dad and brother(s).  It was a ground-breaking visual achievement then, and not only does it hold-up well today, it actually puts to shame so many current movies.  The line which stands out for me, and is applicable here is, " your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should" (Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm).  Alright so maybe it's not directly applicable to what I'm about to say, but it's a decent segue...  So many movies, which depend on special effects, seem to bite-off more than they can chew.  Instead of showing restraint and utilizing effective effects, all too often we are subjected to shoddy workmanship, which jolts us out of the movie viewing experience.  It is my position that Spielberg understood this temptation, and teases the viewer in an early scene (with the Brachiosaurus eating from the tree).  At this early stage he allows us one moment where we can think "that's not real, who'd be afraid of that?".  From that point on the dinosaurs are so convincing; whether models, puppets, or digital, that we believed every moment of it.  My brother David texted that it was awesome in the theater, so I went to see it again.
He was right.

"Oblivion" is ground-breaking in a more subtle way that "Jurassic Park".  Here the effects, stunts, and performances are seamless; I challenge you to detect where the real ends and the simulated begins.  Sure the story seems like a mish-mash of all the best science fiction films of the last 30+ years, but at least they "borrowed" from the best.  Some "Matrix", a little "Blade Runner", a nod to "Wall-e", a dash of "Planet of the Apes", and even some "Fight Club" just to spice things up.  Please allow me to stray off on a tangent for just a moment:  If Heaven doesn't include the good parts of Earth; Mt Princeton, Point Reyes, the hills of Tennessee, etc.  then I think that it would be impossible not to miss them.  As Tom Cruise's character in "Oblivion" is faced with the inevitability that he must leave Earth, for a more civilized place, he is sad.  This film could be easily be construed as an argument against  war, or an environmental sermon, or perhaps an admonishment directed towards those who put blind faith in those with authority.  Ultimately, it is a surprisingly beautiful film, which have the potential to spark deep thought, without requiring it to enjoy the ride.

A Brief Hiatus

It has been well over three months since my last movie review, so I thought at the very least you deserve some sort of explanation.  While I have seen some movies over the last few months, they have been relatively few and far between, and I haven't seen any really good ones. 

The newest Die Hard movie worked hard to be worse than its predecessor, and actually exceeded that mark; becoming one of the worst movies ever made. 

Jess and I watched "Beasts of the Southern Wild" on DVD prior to the Academy Awards, and were greatly impressed with Quvenzhané Wallis' performance.  I'm not sure whether she has a promising  career ahead of her, but she was well cast and powerful in an eye-opening film.

Speaking of the Academy Awards, I was glad that "Argo" won as much as it did; while it wasn't that impressive of a film, it was the best one I saw last year, so at least the members of the Academy get it right occasionally.  Jess and I DVRd the awards show, which is the best way to go; the next night we skipped all the acceptance speeches and all the boring documentary (and the like) categories.

Jude and I saw the new GI Joe movie a little while back.  It was significantly better than the first, but that's kind of like saying "getting punched in the stomach is better than getting your fingernails pulled out"... it's all relative.

Probably the best movie I've seen in the last three months has been a certain Blu-Ray that I received for Christmas; "To Catch A Thief".  Two elements stand out which I would like to share with you; firstly, it defied my notion of what a Hitchcock film can be.  It wasn't necessarily suspenseful, there was a mystery, but instead of creating a foreboding atmosphere, Hitchcock allowed the story to develop through the dialogue of his characters.  It was amazing to listen to the sharp, witty conversations between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, only later to realize that Hitchcock was using it as misdirection.  Secondly, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography was a pleasant surprise.  Once again, I had never thought of Hitchcock as being concerned with such things; this film was so visually rich that I must conclude that it also was part of an elaborate scheme to divert my attention from a somewhat obvious conclusion.  Why can't they make movies like this anymore?

On a closing note, I thought it would be fitting to mention the passing of Roger Ebert this past week.  I had a practice of writing reviews of movies I watched, posting them online, and then heading over to Ebert's page at the Chicago Sun Times to read his review.  His ability to explain the movie-watching experience is unparalleled.  Whether I agreed with his opinion or not seldom mattered, even if I had liked a movie he rated poorly, at least I could understand his reasons.  He also had a wonderful ability to explain why he had enjoyed a movie even though he understood that it had failed to meet his standards of what a good movie should be.  That kind of honesty, not caring what other critics might say, not concerned with what is "cool", is rare in the field of film criticism.  I am really going to miss reading Ebert's take on the movies I see.

Please note that I recognize that I haven't explained why I haven't written in the last few months.  I never really intended to talk about that, it was just a catchy opening sentence.

Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained

While I definitely am looking forward to meeting Peter, Paul, David, Abraham, and Moses; I must admit that will also be in line to shake Ehud’s hand.  His story is not only intriguing, but it’s one of the funniest and most disgustingly violent accounts in the Bible.  Not being a certified Theologian or anything, I can only express my personal opinion; which is that the graphic nature of Ehud’s story is meant to be a warning, is meant to shame wickedness, and is meant to be hilarious.  If you’re not familiar with Ehud, then you should immediately go read Judges, Chapter 3.  Basically Ehud shows up at evil King Eglon’s palace, gets searched by an inept guard (who doesn’t know about left-handed people apparently) approaches the king, announces that he has “a message from God”, plunges a dagger into the king’s belly (did I mention that the king is uber-fat), and escapes with plenty of time to spare because the kings guards are accustomed to the king spending a good part of the day “relieving himself”.

I believe the previous introduction is relevant when reviewing “Pulp Fiction” and “Django” because the director Quentin Tarantino has made two films that invoke responses similar to the Ehud account.   Before I continue, let me be crystal clear that I am not suggesting that Tarantino’s films are good as I would describe the Bible to be.  Any positive messages or lessons to be learned from a Tarantino film are almost certainly unintentional.  That being said, the Bible does contain accounts of evil, and it is possible to sin if we become obsessed with violence or the profane; liking Ehud, Samson or even David for the wrong reasons is wrong.  That being said, let me tell you what I think about Tarantino’s best and his newest:

“Pulp Fiction” doesn’t have any good guys which makes the two moments when characters “do the right thing” extremely effective.  Butch is a boxer who just double-crossed some gangsters and Jules is a gangster who likes to “quote scripture” before he executes his victims.  As an audience we expect these characters to behave a certain way, and it is genuinely surprising when they decide to change, helping those around them instead of acting selfishly.  Quentin Tarantino liberally applies Newton’s Third Law of Motion to “Pulp Fiction’s” structure; the more extreme a situation, the greater potential exists.  Tarantino uses this approach in unexpected ways; he begins film with two guys having a discussion about mayonnaise on French fries, which evolves into a debate about foot messages.  The audience is confused, is this a gangster movie or not?  Then Jules starts “quoting scripture” and he and his partner Vincent unload their handguns into an unarmed victim.  Had Tarantino simply followed two hitmen talking about hitmen stuff, follwed by them killing someone, the sequence would not have been nearly as effective. 

While “Pulp Fiction’s” structure is important, it’s Tarantino’s writing which distinguishes this film from all subsequent imitations.  Tarantino’s characters speak with a certain poetry and fluidity which seems perfectly natural.  Having an ear for the vernacular, Tarantino writes characters who are intentionally profane and unconsciously profound.  I would suggest that the irony of this is comparable to Mark Twain’s writing; even the most ignorant of people will stumble upon the truth from time to time.  There is a sequence towards the end of “Pulp Fiction” where Jules and Vincent are arguing about the definition of a miracle; does scale factor into determining whether or not God’s intervention can be characterized as a miracle?  Even wicked people who offend God with their daily lives can recognize God’s existence.  “Pulp Fiction” should serve as a warning; sometimes it difficult to distinguish between a gangster and a church-going, law-abiding, regular guy or gal.  Let’s make sure that the world knows us because we’re different, set apart; if there’s any confusion it should only because the gangsters are acting or sounding like us.

There is so much more I would like to say about “Pulp Fiction”, but let us flash forward eighteen years to Tarantino’s newest film, “Django”.  Briefly I should mention the films in-between, because as a body of work they are relevant to the conclusion I draw about “Django”.  “Jackie Brown” was a heist film.  “Kill Bill” (volumes 1 and 2) were revenge flicks.  “Deathproof”, while it contained elements of a horror movie with its cautionary tale was ultimately a revenge flick.  “Inglorious Basterds” was a jumbled mix of John Ford, fantasy historical fiction, and once again a revenge flick.  Is anyone else noticing a trend?  I’ll cut to the chase and reveal that “Django” too is at its core a revenge flick.  I don’t know about you, but I find our country’s history of slavery to be repugnant.  I will freely admit that the premise of “Django” which follows a freed slave administering justice upon brutal slave owners is quite satisfying at times.  There is something within us that longs for wrongs to be righted, and even though we have been commanded not to seek vengeance for ourselves, it’s impossible not to root for a slave with a gun in his hand.  Jamie Foxx plays the title character convincingly as a man who has been scarred by slavery.  As a scarred man he carries evidence both physically and emotionally of the abuse which he has suffered, yet he has an internal strength and resolve which have been tempered by his years of bondage.  A bounty hunter played by Christoph Waltz frees Django and they work together in a relationship which is financially beneficial to Waltz’s character and is necessary for Django to rescue his wife.  The best parts of “Django” are the moments between Waltz and Foxx; the subtle complexity of their relationship is the center of this film.  As Waltz’s character becomes less concerned with his own financial gain and more sympathetic to Django’s plight, I found myself liking him more and more.  Django on the other hand begins spiraling downwards, as his love for wife becomes a secondary motivation; a vengeful bloodlust is Django’s new master.  Unfortunately, “Django” isn’t a good western, it’s not a good love story, and it’s not even among the top three best Tarantino films…  So what’s left is a revenge flick, and since Tarantino has already done that at least four times (and with better results in Kill Bill vol. 2), “Django” just doesn’t have much to offer.  The Waltz character, some of the dialogue, DiCaprio as a villain and a certain soundtrack choice reminded me of Tarantino’s capacity for genius, too bad the rest of the movie couldn’t keep up.

I forgot to mention that King Eglon was so fat that Ehud couldn’t get his dagger back out.  How’s that for a legacy?

The Hobbit

"The Hobbit" is plainly and simply an encore to "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.  The entire film is set within the context of Peter Jackson’s earlier films, even though “The Hobbit” chronologically occurred first.  I am not referring exclusively to Old Bilbo being the first Bilbo that we meet in “The Hobbit”, rather the motivations, characters, cinematic cues, and even the music frame this film as though it is merely “Lord of the Rings Part IV: The Hobbit (part 1)”.  Now don’t get me wrong; ever since I saw “Return of the King” for the first time, I’ve craved more “Lord of the Rings”, and it’s finally here.  Far be it from me to get involved in any discussion concerning “what’s been changed” or “what’s missing”…  Let me instead point out three very important elements which remain intact, thereby making “The Hobbit” a great retelling of Tolkien’s classic:  Dwarves showing up for dinner.  A story about golf.  Riddles.  That pretty much sums it up.  I will close by saying that New Bilbo (or Young Bilbo depending on your point of view) was cast extremely well, which pleasantly surprised me.  I am keeping this review short; because I would much rather discuss this film with each of my readers than write about it any further.  Goodnight.

Lincoln

There were two daunting tasks facing Steven Spielberg when he undertook "Lincoln".  First; who could successfully portray the iconic president Abraham Lincoln in a manner that retains dignity yet intimately on a human level?  Second; which chapter of Lincoln's story should be told, considering that he was the single most influential individual in American history? 

Casting Daniel Day-Lewis is almost like cheating; I wonder how much Spielberg directed and how much he just sat back and watched the performance.  There is not a moment in this film wherein Day-Lewis is present, only Abraham Lincoln has come in for work today.  Compliments must be paid to the writer Tony Kushner for giving Lincoln intelligent dialogue, but ultimately Day-Lewis so fully inhabits this role that he could probably have read scenes from "The Hobbit" and still convinced me that he is Abraham Lincoln.  I am ashamed to admit that I do not know how historically accurate certain elements of the film are, but I like to think that Lincoln was as good as he is portrayed here.  It was interesting to see Lincoln with such a good sense of humor; I believe that smart people with a good grasp on reality must be funny to survive.

Spielberg decided to focus on Lincoln in the White House during the fight for the Thirteenth Amendment.  The War of Northern Aggression (I put that in for Grandfather) had been raging for years, and Lincoln had already won re-election by the start of this film.  The story of "Lincoln" is very decidedly a moral struggle between good and evil; the abolishment of slavery.  Spielberg doesn't allow for ambiguity on Lincoln's part, very early Lincoln explains why he made the Emancipation Proclamation and why it would become null and void without the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.  Much of the film examines the political wrangling which was necessary to convince Congressmen to vote for an amendment which they believed went too far, or not far enough.  Tommy Lee Jones plays Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in a dynamic role who will convince you that compromise can be a very honorable approach.  Perhaps the most surprising element of this film was Sally Field's portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln.  The story arc between her and Abraham Lincoln (her husband) is a true testament to Spielberg's mastery of the medium and the potency of great acting chemistry.  Day-Lewis and Field are so convincing in their respective roles that their final carriage ride feels like the sun breaking through after a long and horrible storm.

There are two complaints I have against the film; one minor and one which is probably just my hang-up (so I'll try to convince you of its merits).  First; some of the costumes, colors, and sets made me think "re-enactment", which is not something I expected in a Spielberg film.  Abraham Lincoln never came across like that, but some of the side characters (Lee and Grant) felt more like actors dressing-up than the men they were meant to be.  Second; I couldn't leave this past election and all my political sensibilities at the door.  Knowing that Spielberg is a President Obama supporter and knowing that President Obama claims that Lincoln is his hero definitely tainted my view of this film.  I read that Spielberg recently screened "Lincoln" at the White House for President Obama, and it kinda irritates me to imagine President Obama somehow comparing himself with Lincoln in his own mind.  Secretly I hope that upon viewing the moral conviction and genuine compassion for humankind that Lincoln exudes, maybe, just maybe there was a pang of conscience felt there in the White House theater room.

Flight and Skyfall

Whip Whitaker and James Bond are drug-addicted alcoholics, who use women in an attempt to fill the emptiness in their lives.  Both men have professions which carry great responsibility, and it really would be best if they could lay off the mind altering distractions (at least while they’re on the job).  In Robert Zemeckis’ newest film “Flight”, Denzel Washington plays a commercial airline pilot who saves the lives of hundreds of passengers; drunk and under the influence of drugs.  Daniel Craig has adopted a new “debonair bum” look in the new James Bond movie “Skyfall” directed by Sam Mendes.  As usual, Bond drinks his way through a series of “romantic” escapades accented by the occasional world-saving mission; only now he has also become dependent on pain killers.   It seems to me that Sam Mendes took an extraordinary risk by humanizing James Bond; there’s no going back to the shallow, glorified Bond of old.  Both Zemeckis and Mendes have made films about the fallibility of man.  While one, or maybe both of these men are redeemable (within the context of their respective films) it will be a difficult path.  If you’ve seen any previous Mendes films, you will surely know that Bond doesn’t find redemption at the end of “Skyfall”, and that’s not a spoiler (but in retrospect I guess I just spoiled the ending of “Flight”… sorry).  A number of questions come to my mind regarding “Flight” and “Skyfall”:  Why are we drawn to movies with people who perform heroic feats, yet are such horrible role models?  Why would such a long running series as James Bond so abruptly criticize its central character?  Please don’t interpret this as anything but a positive review; I’m happy to leave the theater asking questions.  In the case of “Flight” I would suggest that Denzel played the typical “Bogart” hero; a man who spends 95% of the film frustrating the audience with his selfishness and even cowardice, followed by a satisfying display of genuine goodness.  Mendes’ examination of James Bond could only have come after 50 years of films, featuring probably the most despicable heroes of all time.  Finally we are seeing Bond for who he really is, and it’s ugly and sad.  Now some of you may have already seen “Skyfall” and you’re thinking, “Did we see the same movie?  All I remember are those sweet action sequences, and the amazing lighting and camera work during the high-rise scene.”  I would suggest that “Skyfall” was a great James Bond film, with all the necessary elements, but it also dispelled the lie which suggests that Bond is actually satisfied with his life.  There will never be a happy ending for James Bond.

Argo

In the almost two weeks that it's been since I saw "Argo" quite a few events have influenced my perspective on the film.  First off, in all fairness, I must say that it was a well crafted and well acted film.  I was genuinely surprised with how funny it was, probably because I wasn't really expecting to.  That being said, when I saw the film, the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was ever-present in my mind.  Similarities between the events in the movie and those in the news do exist, but only loosely.  Where there is little difference between the movie and real life is the political wrangling which is central to both fictional accounts.  "Argo" is a fictional account of a historic event, and it is becoming apparent that the Benghazi historical account was a fictional event.  In "Argo" a mob descends upon the American embassy in Tehran.  We clearly see that an organized element within the crowd, guiding and controlling the actions of the mob.  In Benghazi there was no mob, except in the imaginations of those who should have known (or did know) the truth.  I honestly didn't intend to stray off on this tangent, yet it seems almost impossible to avoid.  I liked Ben Affleck's acting and directing, especially his decision to avoid being graphic yet always maintaining a shroud of danger.  The plan detailed in this film; to rescue a group of citizens from hostile territory under the guise of making a fake movie was destined to be made into a film.  Hey I sorta had this idea before it was declassified.  Which was after it happened, but before anyone knew about it; but that's neither here nor there.  I really enjoyed the ending where President Carter talks about freeing all the hostages; that is classic.  One day, thirty years from now when they're making a movie about us, President Obama will get to make a similar speech about his victory in Benghazi. 

Looper

Sixteen years ago I drove from Spring Canyon (near Buena Vista) to the nearest movie theater (35 minutes away in Salida) to see perhaps the greatest time travel movie of all time; “12 Monkeys”. What made it great was its Calvinistic approach to the space-time continuum. The cardinal rule in most other time travel movies is that we are masters of our fate. Prime examples of this can be seen in “Back to the Future” or “Terminator 2”, where time travel is used to alter historical events. In essence this view of time travel allows for branching parallel possible futures; each event has the potential of altering the course of time. “12 Monkeys” broke that convention, basically stating that if time travel were possible it would be bound to the confines of a pre-ordained path. Although the characters in this film feel as though they are independent actors in a chaotic world, ultimately their action are all part of the pre-determined plan. “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” is another exception to the Hollywood standard; the time travel which takes place in that film is an integral element of Potter’s destiny. While the chronology of time is skewed, the end result cannot be altered. Maybe you already figured this out, but I love time travel movies. While I liked “12 Monkeys” because I actually agreed with its perspective, really I like any time travel movie if it is able to adhere to logic. From a philosophical perspective I completely disagree with the “Back to the Future” series; yet they are thought provoking and extremely entertaining. As you will read in a moment, I feel the same way about the new film “Looper”. While this film follows the standard time travel convention, it does so wholeheartedly, with some notable twists that kept my attention, even though I found the entire premise utterly preposterous…

In “Looper”, Joseph Gordon-Levitt ages to look just like Bruce Willis. That in and of itself is kinda cool, but that’s not really what the movie is about. Usually time travel movies feature characters who are extremely self-centered. Whether the world is good or bad is judged through the eyes of the main character. “Looper” varies this theme by allowing Present Joe (played by Gordon-Levitt) and Old Joe (Willis) to interact. While this is the same person, he has a different perspective on life depending on when he is from. Obviously Present Joe has less life-experience and his decisions are primarily reactionary and somewhat principle-based. Old Joe has come to different conclusions about the meaning of life, in some ways he has outgrown the childishness of Present Joe. At the same time it becomes clear that regardless of when Joe is from, he is a selfish person. When he comes to realize this is the moment at which “Looper” rises above the standard time travel cliché. While the trailers for this movie have focused primarily on the time travel hitman element, it really is concerned with something deeper. That being said, the filmmakers definitely enjoyed playing with the action afforded to them by a dystopian future in which mobsters send their victims back in time to hitmen armed with blunderbusses. My final thought will be this; if you liked “12 Monkeys” you’ll almost certainly enjoy “Looper”. If you’re saying “what in the world is this ’12 Monkeys’ movie Peter keeps talking about?” and you really enjoyed the Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves time travel movie “The Lake House”, then I think you should take a pass on “Looper”.

The Master

There are two distinct approaches to reviewing movies:  The first being reactionary, wherein the review is primarily describing the film and its effectiveness.  The second approach is a deeper exploration, an attempt to determine why the film was (or was not) effective.  What do I mean by effective?  Even the silliest of movies is trying to do something; whether the filmmaker is preaching or just trying to make you laugh, every movie ever made has a purpose.  All too often I lose sight of this principle; I overthink movies that were never intended to provoke thought.  All this is my preamble for the review of “The Master”, which is a movie that demands further examination.  I liken the experience of watching this film to that of viewing “Collateral” (with Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise).  It’s possible I suppose that some may have walked away from that movie with memories of intense action and great performances by two good actors.  For me that film was a jolt; life isn’t your plan for some point in the future, it’s what you are doing right now.  I place the message of the film into the context of my beliefs and I know that I am not to worry about tomorrow; I have a responsibility to honor God today.  If each new day is a devotion to this precept, then I am confident that God will take care of the future. 

                It is my hope that each movie I review not only entertains (or informs) you the reader, but also encourages and builds-up each and every one of you (alright, the two or three of you).  From now on there will be three separate categories of movie reviews:  Kid Friendly family movie reviews, Basic “Avenger” this movie doesn’t have much depth reviews, and Thorough reviews.  I will keep each category separate, but it is up to you to discern which one the movie falls into.  For example, “Monsters University” will be a Kid Friendly review, while “The Master” which is rated “R” is definitely going to be a Thorough review.  I typically don’t comment on why films receive their MPAA rating, since I know that Focus on the Family does a profanity count (in case you’re keeping score) and the official MPAA website gives specific reasons for the movie’s rating.  Recently I have mish-mashed reviews together in a thoughtless way, and I do apologize for inappropriately discussing certain films in a flippant manner.  Also, if you ever have any questions about something I say (or neglect) please don’t hesitate to call or email.  I love talking about movies anytime.  You’re probably wondering, “I thought this was a review of ‘The Master’!  What’s all this?”  Well, here you go…

                “The Master” delivers a message of hope.  Or maybe it is simply a character study revealing the stubbornness of one man.  While the intentions of the director Paul Thomas Anderson may be impossible to determine, I can tell you that I came away with the message of hope.  As the film opens we are introduced to Freddie Quell, a troubled man played by Joaquin Phoenix.  Freddie has seen the horrors of World War II in the pacific, and now is wandering aimlessly through life.  He is plagued by a multitude of sins, which ferment within his being, exploding in fits of violent anger.  We can tell that his soul is tormented, not only by his evil behavior, but also by the contortions of his face.  Enter Lancaster Dodd (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), a religious leader who is known by his followers as ‘Master’.  He recognizes and praises the abilities and qualities that he sees in Freddie.  He makes Freddie feel welcome and important.  He promises Freddie that he can relieve him of his burdens and deliver him a happy life.  The film excels during scenes in which Dodd is attempting to convert Freddie.  Like the light saber duel from “The Empire Strikes Back” or the chariot race in “Ben-Hur”, this film presents a sequence of extraordinary fights scenes.  The obvious distinction being that “The Master” portrays a battle of wills instead of a physical confrontation.  There is no doubt to us in the audience that Dodd is the leader of a cult, a religion devised and operated for his own gratification.  Yet as is the case with any cult, those caught-up in the fervor cannot perceive the truth.  Does Freddie become a follower?  I don’t want to ruin the movie for anyone, so I will not elaborate on the plot any further.  What I will do is make a comparison to an earlier Joaquin Phoenix film, “Walk the Line”.  The best part of that film was what happened after the movie is over; knowing what Johnny Cash became after his turbulent rise to fame is the uplifting element.  Of course, strictly speaking, what happens after a movie isn’t really part of the movie; yet I would argue that what we bring into the movie does influence what we take out.  Therefore, recognizing that Johnny Cash’s salvation later in life came even after the events portrayed in “Walk the Line” led me to believe that it was a good film.  So “The Master” doesn’t have an ending where everyone has repented of their sin, and are down on their knees begging God’s forgiveness.   It does end with a reminder that even the most persuasive of false prophets will never have a 100% success rate. "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). Even so, ultimately God is in control and through his grace even those who seem most susceptible to being led astray have hope.

The Bourne Legacy and ParaNorman

In a sense, today's review is merely a formality, a chance to wipe the slate clean and prepare for (hopefully) some movies worth watching and therefore worth reviewing. I will briefly comment on two of the last movies based on the chronological order in which I viewed them.

"The Bourne Legacy" was a suitable branch-off from the thrilling Jason Bourne series. Personally I thought the first Bourne movie was an amazing breath of fresh air; a leap forward in the espionage genre. The third, "The Bourne Ultimatum" was about as good as it gets, building on everything from the first two films and injecting the series with a dynamic love story; I really liked that movie. Now with "The Bourne Legacy" everything is kind of starting from scratch. The ingredients are good, and its a proven recipe, but we've seen it before. Perhaps a follow-up could have a great story, unfortunately this movie is another back-story introduction which just isn't that interesting.

The kids and I saw "ParaNorman" and I am glad to report that I stayed awake through the whole movie. Whether it's Sony Animation or Dreamworks, I just can't stay awake through this drivel that they're marketing to kids nowadays. If I need a good nap I turn on an "Ice Age" movie (or "Iron Man", but that's another story), find a cozy blanket, and I'm out for the count. "ParaNorman" on the other hand is like old-school Tim Burton. There's a heart-warming story, quirky and genuinely funny characters, and creatively creepy visuals that spark the imagination. My kids like to ask "what was your favorite scene?" while we're walking back to the car after the movie. This is the kind of movie that has memorable scenes throughout... You'll need popcorn for this movie, not Breathe-Right strips.

The Dark Knight Rises

I can describe my impression of "The Dark Knight Rises" with one word; messy.

The film opens eight years after the events detailed in "The Dark Knight" which have driven Batman into hiding and simultaneously brought peace to Gotham by portraying Harvey Dent as a martyr. Naturally a new threat has arisen, and Batman must once again don his cape et al and fight, even if he has lost his public approval ratings. Director Christopher Nolan wisely follows this logical path, and the story arc itself is well crafted. The Batman character (or Bruce Wayne, more interchangeable here than before) is presented with a suitable adversary, one who challenges him to his physical and mental limit.

Unfortunately there are too many unnecessary side-characters, and an over-reaching scale. What I mean by scale is that previously Gotham has been depicted as a self-contained city, perhaps meant to symbolize the moral decline which has accompanied urban expansion. Yet in "The Dark Knight Rises" there are cuts to a remote command center (out of Gotham) where Air Force analysts worry about the device which threatens Gotham. Jets are scrambled from offsite and fly over Gotham. Military approaches Gotham over a bridge, meeting citizen half-way. All this shatters the illusion which defines Gotham, and I found myself thinking more of "24" episodes than Batman. Nolan also made the misstep of introducing at least six or seven new supporting characters in this film when only three of them are in any way integral to the plot. The new police chief, members of Wayne Enterprise’s board, and Catwoman all waste valuable screen time.  The choreography of the mob fight sequences is also awkward, which may have been somewhat intentional to create a chaotic atmosphere, but I found it distracting.

In the midst of a messily assembled movie I found myself really enjoying the two most important elements;   Batman/Bruce Wayne’s journey and Bane’s (the antagonist) thread.  Starting with Bane, here is a character who is a man of action.  Backstory and motivation are not as important in understanding Bane, as is observing the path of destruction he leaves.  His physical prowess makes him an imposing figure, which Nolan conveys wonderfully through editing, dialogue and the primary fight sequence between Batman and Bane.  This fight scene was one of the two most important scenes of the movie.  This was the breaking of Batman, literally and metaphorically.  Bane’s breaking of Batman is intertwined with Bruce Wayne’s struggle throughout the film to understand what he should do, and who he should be.  The second most important scene is Wayne’s climb from the inescapable (?) pit prison.  Once again this ascent is meant to be taken at face value and for its symbolic parallels to Wayne’s internal struggle.  Christian Bale is the perfect actor to play Batman, because the audience can sincerely root for him as Gotham’s salvation and despise him for the wretch he is, both at the same time.  At the center of Nolan’s failed attempt to make an epic finale to his Batman trilogy, is a much humbler but truly powerful cautionary tale.

While there is so much more I could discuss, it’s best that I close by briefly commenting on the ending of “The Dark Knight Rises”.  So often I criticize great films for their unsatisfactory endings; with this film I find that observation turned on its head.  The last five minutes of this film almost made me forgive Nolan for the previous 2 ½ hours.  While the ending may not have been fitting for the movie itself, it was a stand-alone good ending, one which will bring smiles to faces of Batman fans everywhere.  I had a smile on my face as the credits started rolling.

Moonrise Kingdom and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

My brother Nate has an interesting perspective on Wes Anderson movies, and the people who love them.  In a condensed form, Wes Anderson is a one trick pony who has snowed his fans into thinking that he is a genius.  Basically Wes Anderson makes the same movie over and over again, yet he is acclaimed as being 'truly original'...  Nate "I'm sorry if I completely mischaracterized your view (or omitted important elements) but please keep reading.  Up 'til now I would have argued passionately that this wasn't the case, I have always thoroughly enjoyed Wes Anderson movies.  I chalked up my dislike for "The Darjeeling Limited" to being a close call; it was funny but somehow just barely missed the mark.  Now with "Moonrise Kingdom" the veil has been completely lifted.  I should have stopped watching Wes Anderson four movies ago (making an exception for "The Fantastic Mr. Fox of course).  Of course if you've never seen a Wes Anderson movie before, and you're someone who would like a Wes Anderson movie, you'd probably love "Moonrise Kingdom".  The reason for this being that it's the same as any other Wes Anderson movie (maybe even more so).  I think what I've come to realize is that I've seen too many Wes Anderson movies.  Perhaps they're all perfectly decent films, unfortunately they don't work in the 'canon' form.  The question now arises; will I still be able to enjoy my favorite Wes Anderson movies now that I've come to  agree with Nate?

I know that the following conclusion seems inconsistent with so many other movies I've reviewed over the years, but I really liked "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".  The very title of this film asks the audience to suspend reality, and if you are able to do this for just about two hours, then you too could enjoy Abraham Lincoln hunting, killing, and trash-talking vampires.  In Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" we got the satisfaction of seeing American soldiers fill Hitler full of lead; it seems only natural that Abraham Lincoln, had any vampires been around, would have personally taken it upon himself to decapitate as many as possible.  Couple that factoid with the idea of vampires being Southerners, and moreover slave owning Southerners, and it becomes obvious that Lincoln would have gone berserk.  If I'm going to suspend reality when I enter a movie theater, I might as well follow it to it's over-the-top, yet logical conclusion.  As I write this the movie "The Road" comes to mind.  While that movie probably was meant to be a allegory of sorts, it was presented as a realistic depiction of the world's end.  Unfortunately too many holes appeared and the sceenplay fell short.  Ironically, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" maintains its credibility without skipping a beat.

Brave

"Brave" is a decent movie.
Let me suggest that the greatest films Pixar  has produced would have been impossible to create without computer animation.  "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille" feature non-human characters that could not be convincing with live-action and would be far too limited using traditional animation.  That being said, I feel as though "Brave" was an unnecessary undertaking for Pixar.  While there is some magical shape-shifting which demonstrates the talent of Pixar's artists, this could easily have been as a special effect in a live-action film.  I would argue that computer animation shouldn't be used to replace human actors, rather as a supplement (to enhance human performances).  If the lead role in "Brave" had been played by a real little girl I would have felt a much stronger connection to what was happening in her life onscreen.  While quite a different film, "Hanna" also centered on a brave young girl; even in the most outrageous situations I found that film to be much more compelling than "Brave".  None of this is meant to detract from the qualities which definitely exist in Pixar's newest addition.  The animation is excellent, the scenery is lush, and "Brave" contains the richest musical score of any Pixar film to date.  I liked the characters, I especially enjoyed watching the girl's mother (in both forms) as her character went through an interesting transformation (on multiple levels). 
It seems to me that "Brave" was a pretty safe choice for Pixar; it has a traditional story and characters who are easy to relate to.  Personally I prefer the riskier Pixar undertakings; a rat who loves great food is exceedingly more interesting to me.

Lawrence of Arabia

Sometimes I think that my movie reviews should be just that, and personal interjections or deviating tangents are best avoided.  On the flip side of that coin; perhaps it's the tangents which make these reviews uniquely my own.  Also considering that my path in life seems more focused on Calculus right now than filmmaking, perhaps it is fitting that tangents take a more prominent position in my writing...

I'm a bit of a movie nerd if you didn't already know.  As I posted a review a few weeks ago I noticed that I'm coming up on 200 postings (well over 200 movies since often I review multiple movies in each post).  I also remembered that my 100th posting a few years back was for "The Dark Knight", which got me excited thinking that "The Dark Knight Rises" was on track to be my 200th posting.  Well, here I am at the 199th posting, about to write about a classic.  This poses somewhat of a dilemma, considering that there are a few movies I'd like to see before "The Dark Knight Rises" is released in just over a month.  I couldn't possibly see "Brave" and not write about it sometime in the next few weeks, and there's a few other movies I'd still like to see including showings of "Cool Hand Luke" and "The Searchers" at our local theater.  Perhaps this doesn't make sense to anyone else, but it just seemed like a really cool milestone to have both Batman movies mark notable points in my blogwriting endeavor.   Of course this could be all moot; the world could easily come to an end in the next 32 days and I may never see "The Dark Knight Rises", or worse it could be a horrible film and I won't even want to write about it.  Now let's get to "Lawrence of Arabia"...

After seeing the clip of "Lawrence of Arabia" in "Prometheus" I placed the former on hold at my library since it has been many years since my last viewing.  I had only seen it once before, probably around the age of 12-14, so my impression of the film was quite obscure.  I remember it being long, I think many actually may have heard me say that it would have been better had it ended half-way through.  I no longer hold that opinion.  The task of reviewing this film is daunting to me, so I will break it down into three categories; the cinematography, the story and performances, and the philosophy.

Apparently there is a high definition film transfer which has recently occurred, which means a theatrical re-release is coming soon and Blu Ray.  I am looking forward to both.  Even on DVD it is clear that this film is a visual masterpiece.  Certain sequences, such as Lawrence walking across the train cars burn impressions of his character into your memory.  Other shots, such as Lawrence's arrival at the Suez Canal must be seen, mere descriptions would do it little justice.  Considering that the desert is itself a central character in this film, shooting on location contributes so much to the look and feel of "Lawrence of Arabia".  I watched a short interview with Steven Spielberg (included on the DVD) in which he mentions that audiences can tell the difference between real scenery and sound stages or special effects.  Going back and looking at "Lawrence" and other epic films of the time, it boggles my mind that any self-respecting director would work exclusively with green screens or on a set if a possible real location would work instead.  "Prometheus" helps prove my point, the best looking parts of that film were definitely the real landscapes.  Movies like "Jurassic Park" work precisely because the craftsmen work so relentlessly to make the essential sets look so like the actual locations, which are utilized as much as possible.  "Lawrence of Arabia" has a train wreck which is far more convincing than the recent "Super 8", I wonder why that is?

You may have wondered at my division of categories, let me take a moment to give a brief explanation:  Cinematography is the way the film is framed, everything onscreen has a visual impact on the audience.  The story and performances go together, these are the basics of cause and affect, motivation, reactions, and consequences.  Philosophy is the reason any of this is interesting or important.  So as I discuss the story and performances it is best not to analyze the morality (or lack thereof) contained within this film, I will simply try to criticize the presentation.  Substance will be considered in the next section...  Peter O'Toole plays Lawrence perfectly.  Quite often during the almost four hour movie, one of my kids would ask "why did he say that" or "why is he smiling?"  They were picking up on the contradictions between what Lawrence had said a moment before and the way he was currently acting.  The screenplay, and O'Toole's portrayal of Lawrence definitely keep the audience on their toes.  The early scenes of Lawrence in Cairo (excerpted in "Prometheus") are wonderful at establishing his character.  He is a restless misfit, who can sense a world of opportunity just over the horizon.  Two great movies come to mind that I would like to compare with "Lawrence of Arabia"; "Patton" starring George C. Scott and "The Aviator" featuring Leonardo DiCaprio.  "Patton" examines the life of a singularly-minded warrior.  His delusional personality makes him a fascinating character, yet there isn't much depth.  "The Aviator" follows Howard Hughes' transformation  from a visionary genius to obsessive-compulsive recluse.  While the story is sadly captivating, it is overall a simplistic representation.  In contrast, O'Toole's Lawrence is a dynamic man, who cannot be easily defined.  In a single scene Lawrence seems disconnected from reality, wandering in a daze and the very next moment is perfectly lucid.  He weeps over the death of a man he hardly knew and later slaughters unarmed men without hint of remorse.  Having the audience question Lawrence's inconsistencies (as my kids were doing) is no accident; he is going mad.  One of my least favorite movies is also about madness; "Black Hawk Down".  The director of that film (ironically) Ridley Scott wasn't content with conveying the madness of a horrible situation, rather he attempted to drive the audience mad too.  If frustrating and infuriating the audience was his goal, then I guess he deserves due praise, but watching that movie is such a horrible experience in and of itself.  "Lawrence of Arabia" paints a coherent, even beautiful picture of one man's ascent to greatness and descent into madness, which amazingly both were occurring at the same time.

Watching "Lawrence of Arabia" with my kids made me pay special attention to the philosophical aspect of the film.  I actually paused the DVD a few times to explain certain scenes or answer specific questions.  One such moment came during a scene where various tribesmen were invoking God's name as a blessing upon Lawrence and his quest.  "God be with you" is a wonderful thing to say.  "If God wills it" might be even better.  How come Christians don't talk to each other like this?    I explained to my kids that some people have false beliefs, not recognizing Christ as God's son, the one and only saviour.  Unfortunately while 99.9% of the people in this movie are claiming to serve God, they are in actuality seriously misguided.  The other .1% is Lawrence himself, he believes only in himself.  What makes him dangerous is his knowledge, he has an extensive understanding of history; he knows the truth but does not accept it.  The apparent contradiction that Lawrence can both hate death and take pleasure from murder is really not a contradiction at all.  The struggle with sin that exists for those who seek to honor God does not look the same for those who are at the center of their own lives.  Lawrence was a tortured man, but he could see no rhyme or reason for his misery.  He found himself in a paradox; how could he define purpose in life if he truly didn't care about the people he claimed to be fighting for?  At best Lawrence is a tragic hero, someone who accomplished great victories which supported a higher purpose, while at the same time losing his own soul.  "Lawrence of Arabia" could be seen as a tribute to an incredible man, I see it as a stern warning.  The best warnings are the ones that really get you attention.

Prometheus

Let me tell you why I liked "Prometheus".  From the opening shot to the film's closing "Prometheus" follows the two most important rules of great science fiction:  First it is visually amazing; even the shots of Earth are wondrous and effective in establishing context for the story we are about to experience.  Secondly, and most importantly, questions are posed which force us as the audience to become involved with the decisions and consequences that occur onscreen.  These questions can be simple as; would take your helmet off on an alien planet?  Or deep; how would a scientific discovery affect your faith?  I went to see "Prometheus" with Rob, and I think that the initial premise of the story was too much for him to overcome; that humans were created by an alien race.  I can imagine that for many reading this review this would be a major hang-up and would distract from their enjoyment of the film.  Let me suggest that the movie isn't trying to preach one origin theory or another, rather the aliens, the space travel, the technology, and the scary monsters are all merely for entertainment value, while the substance of this film is in the questions.  In true science fiction form, there will always be far more questions than there are answers; answers are so disappointing and anti-climactic.  The main characters here are a scientist named Elizabeth Shaw (played by Noomi Rapace) and an android named David (played by Michael Fassbender).  Shaw is portrayed as a woman strongly clinging to her faith, regardless of events which might cause others to fall away.  This is a stroke of genius, because typically scientists are portrayed merely as cerebral, whereas a reasonable person must conclude that any belief system is ultimately based on faith.  Ridley Scott (the director) masterfully establishes Shaw as the center of this film; I was truly sympathetic to her plight and was rooting for her.  Typically movies treat the audience with a childlike disdain; either root for Tom Cruise or the other guy, who by the way is trying to initiate a Nuclear holocaust.  In "Prometheus" Scott allows us to choose who the "good guy" is by introducing us to the characters and asking the question, who's side would you be on?  As was true in her "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" role, Rapace is able to subtly play Shaw as both extremely brave and strong while being realistically fragile.  Her actions never seem like they are plot devices, rather she is a living, reasoning person in an extraordinary situation.  This is well contrasted against the David character, who builds upon Scott's fascination with androids and their unavoidable influence on humanity (and visa versa).  Scott's original "Alien" and of course "Blade Runner" ask moral questions about man creating beings in our own likeness.  "Prometheus" goes further, delving into the irony of men who are searching for answers about their creators, while so callously mistreating their own creations.  David could easily have been presented as an antagonist, yet Scott understands that a intricate android character is far more stimulating than an evil robot.  Early scenes where David is watching "Lawrence of Arabia" clue us in that this movie is aspiring to be far greater than some shallow sci-fi horror flick.  That being said, what would an Alien movie be without some scary aliens?  Here too Scott doesn't disappoint.  The alien creatures are imaginative and set the right tone for the part they play in this story.  The primary alien race which is focused on are familiar yet intimidating, making it possible to conclude that while they should be respected they might be friendly too.  Then there's the more mysterious creatures, the kind that are obviously up to no good.  Scott and his team of effects wizards once again prove that aliens don't have to be big and scary looking to be be deadly.  Personally I'm not a fan of the horror/creature genre, yet Scott uses techniques from that industry to create motivation and tension.  What better way to examine what a person's true character is than to put them in room with a maneating alien parasite?  The other effects were equally amazing; this film was shot in the newest high definition 3D digital format, and seeing it in IMAX is impressive.  The panoramic views and majestic interior shots benefit most from the 3D, and fortunately it never felt like a gimmick. Scott clearly knows how to utilize technology to compliment the story he is trying to tell; I think that all the great directors push the limits of filmmaking but never loose sight of what they are seeking to accomplish. The worst thing that can happen in a movie is breaking the illusion (with the one exception being "Ferris Bueller's Day Off").  I would hate to spoil anything for someone who has not yet seen the movie, so consider yourself warned.  The last ten minutes of the movie contain my only complaints, albeit rather minor ones:  Firstly there is the unnecessary double ending...  I would have preferred the first ending of the ship flying into the proverbial sunset, fade to black, the end.  I know that the second ending was meant for the fans (of which I am one), but it wasn't beneficial to the movie itself and somehow seemed out of place.  Secondly there is the possibility of a glaring continuity issue, if in fact this is the definitive prequel to "Alien".  A very central character isn't where he should be at the end of this movie considering where he is discovered in "Alien".  Because the movie never claims to be leading up to the beginning of "Alien" perhaps there is an explanation for this apparent oversight, so I can't complain too much.  I was reminded of the scene from "Empire" when Obi-Wan tells Luke that he was trained by Yoda, then in the prequels inexplicably Qui-Gon is Obi-Wan's master.  There is a hint of that feeling here at the end of "Prometheus", but I talked myself through it, and it's not that bad.  Overall the ending is satisfactory, and the film as a whole is one of the best I've seen in a long time.  Take that "Cowboys and Aliens"!

The Dictator, Dark Shadows, The Three Stooges, and Snow White and the Huntsman

I tend to take longer to post my impressions of movies depending on how inspired I was by the viewing experience.

I saw "The Dictator" a few weeks back, and while it was somewhat funny, it was mostly flat. My hope for this movie stemmed from the previous experience of seeing "Borat", which surprised me as being hilarious throughout. Unfortunately "the Dictator" was too concerned with its heartwarming and ironic message that it ceased to be a comedy. As is too often the case, once again the trailer really did give away most of the funny parts, with one notable exception involving Daffy Duck cartoons (now I've officially given away all the funny parts making it pointless for you to see this movie).

Johnny Depp and Tim Burton made my favorite Halloween movie, "Sleepy Hollow". They have worked together many times, often with wonderful results. As with the movie I reviewed above, here in "Dark Shadows" it would seem that everyone involved in this movie forgot that they were supposed to be making a comedy. Parts that could have been funny were interrupted by disturbing moments, and the overall tone of the movie was too campy for the disturbing parts to rise to the level of dark comedy. I heard someone else accuse Johnny Depp of being on cruise control in this role, and I would have to agree. Usually his performances are unique and fun to watch, but here it was just blah. This coming Halloween I'll be watching my copy of "Sleepy Hollow" again, and hopefully the "Dark Shadows" experience will quickly escape my memory.

The kids and I saw "The Three Stooges" at the local dollar theater this past week. Personally I've never been that much of a Stooges fan, but being a guy I have a certain amount of appreciation for them and their cultural impact. I do like previous Farrelly brothers movies, and knowing that they're big Stooges fanatics got me interested in what their updated version would be like. Overall I really enjoyed the movie; the Stooges were well cast (Curly being the best), and the story was strong enough to hold together the slapstick scenes and typical Stooge dialogue. Perhaps the best question that could be asked concerning the Three Stooges movie would be, is it really necessary? Of course not, but then isn't that true about so many movies. This was entertaining, and true to its source material, what more could we ask for?

Rob and I saw "Snow White and the Huntsman" the other night. There are certain movies that are really good for the first 3/4 or so, then fizzle out at the end. When it's all over I actually wish that I could have just seen the good part and left before everything went down hill. What would be worse, not knowing the ending to a good movie, or sticking around long enough to know that it wasn't that good after all? Alas, this is one of those catch-22s; one that is impossible to avoid. Even if you swear-off movies altogether which helps you cut out the bad endings, you'll completely miss out on the good movies which are out there. "The Last Samurai" is an excellent example of this unfortunate phenomena, everything in the Japanese village was wonderful, but the final battle sequence and subsequent closing pretty much ruined the movie. Here in "Snow White" there is so much to like; lush fairy tale atmosphere, Charlize Theron as the evil queen, amazing effects, and even good performances from an actor and actress who haven't impressed me with their earlier work. Yet, as is too often the case, the conclusion of this movie doesn't live up to its set-up. Perhaps you could be spared the disappointment of this movie and walk out when the ravens begin swarming around the evil queen at approximately the 100 minute mark. Can you handle not knowing the ending while being comforted with the fact that you were spared a bad experience?

... Neither could I.

The Avengers

For the reader's convenience I have linked to my previous reviews of the following movies:  Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America.  I don't think I ever wrote a review of the Edward Norton "Hulk" movie (I only saw it on video), which was far and away the best of the Avenger-team-member movies; a moot point considering that Norton got replaced by Mark Ruffalo for the ensemble movie just released.  I mention the previous movie reviews merely to point out how exceedingly low my expectations for "The Avengers" was, just less than 24 hours ago.  Some may laugh at this, but I consider myself a undying optimist when it comes to movies; no matter how critical I may be I'm always hoping for the best.

Jess and I have watched the "Firefly" show a couple times (it was only one season long). Joss Whedon created "Firefly" and wrote and directed many of the episode too.  What Whedon brings as a writer and director to "The Avengers" is an understanding that good, funny characters are far more interesting than mindless action.  He has taken three bland and one funny (but not two hours funny) superheroes, given them good lines, just the right amount of tension and created a movie which is actually entertaining all the way through.  I noted in my review of the original "Iron Man" that I enjoyed the final fight sequence because I got a little nap in...  This is the negative side effect of computer animation; "spectacular" has become boring.  Whedon came close to putting me to sleep a few times; I actually dread the finales in movies like this, but he was smart enough to cut between the different heroes focusing more on the humorous interactions, and not putting too much emphasis on the action.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that "The Avengers" atones for the sins of its predecessors; it does have personality, and personality goes a long way.

Hugo and Hunger Games

Somehow we missed "Hugo" in the theater over Christmas break, so we were forced to watch this film for the first time on video, at home. Rob came over and watched with us, which was fun because like me he's a Scorsese fan and appreciates movies in general. I mention this only because "Hugo" is obviously aimed at children, yet anyone who loves movies would enjoy this film. I think it's interesting (and I'm not pretending to be the first to notice) that "Hugo", "The Artist" and "Midnight In Paris" share common themes and all were released around the same time (and won Academy Awards). The stories for each of these films are quite different, yet the nostalgic tone for the past is at the heart of each film. For me "Hugo" had a similar affect as "War Horse"; while I recognized the masterful filmmaking represented on screen, the characters and story never drew me in. Artistically this is a wonderful film, pleasurable to watch, yet I found it to be lacking substance. Perhaps this can be partially explained by the limitation of young actors. An earlier film by Scorsese such as "The Departed" is strengthened by the presence of Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio. Much of the film depends on their performances, which freed Scorsese to focus on style, editing and all the other fun stuff. "Hugo" has no shortage of the fun visual flair, yet falls short of being a great film because the characters never become real.

Jude read the Hunger Games books (and kept me somewhat informed on their content), so I took him to see the first movie at midnight on opening night. Often (as many of you know) I am sucked in by a movie's trailer only to be disappointed by the full product. This time the opposite occurred. I really had little desire to see this movie, based on the premise or the trailers. Even ten to fifteen minutes into the movie I was very critical of the camera work, the cliches which were being utilized, and the minimilistic set design. I think it was an important scene where the main character Katniss says goodbye to her family that changed my mind. While certain elements later in the film still were distracting, overall the strength, courage and fortitude portayed in Katniss led me to thoroughly enjoy the film. The vision of the future in "Hunger Games" seems like a watered-down version of any number of movies that I've seen before; but I realize that this movie wasn't aimed at jaded old guys like me (much like the Twilight series). Rather a new generation is being warned against fascism and other evil isms in the Hunger Games books just like the Twilight books warn young people against other kinds of danger. I am really interested to see how the Hunger Games turns out (not intersted enough to read any books of course), but I'll go to the next movies as they come out.

War Horse, The Gold Rush, The Artist, The Muppets, Tintin, Safe House, and Much Ado About Nothing

Other directors wouldn't dare try a movie like this, which once again proves Spielberg's mastery in filmmaking. It's not the story itself that's daring, rather it is the unique way in which he uses the story to accomplish something greater. It's clear from early in the film that boy and his horse are an allegory for...

That is what I wrote about "War Horse" well over two months ago. Unfortunately I've been pretty busy, and to tell the truth the movies I've seen haven't really inspired me to take the time to write about them. That's really too bad, because even bad movies should be examined; there is an explanation for their badness.

Instead of writing extensively about each of the movies I've seen, I'm going to briefly tell you whether or not I like the given film.

"War Horse" was a masterful film which I didn't really enjoy. The subject matter and characters never really captured my attention.

I watched "The Gold Rush" in preparation for watching "The Artist", I wanted to have a reference point for knowing what a silent film should be. I watched this at home via Netflix with the kids. Charlie Chaplin wasn't making some novelty film where physical performance was all he had; he understood that this was all he needed. Black and white, silent, limited camera techniques and all, this is an extremely entertaining film.

"The Artist" is also an entertaining film, yet we are always conscious of the fact that sound is missing. Honestly, too much emphasis is placed on this being a silent film that it doesn't work as a film, it feels like a gimmick. I would actually argue that it isn't a silent film; if the filmmakers selectively include sound, I would consider that cheating. I enjoyed the movie, but it doesn't belong in the category of "The Gold Rush".

The Muppets was wonderful, especially the musical sequence for 'I'm a Muppet of a Man'. Alas, I could go for more Muppets, this would have been much better had it been the beginning of a new Muppets TV show rather than a stand-alone one-time-only movie.

"Tintin" is like Indiana Jones for little kids (I know about the connections), and if that isn't a selling point for you I can't really help you. There isn't much depth here, but the ride is fun.

"Safe House" meets the criteria of being a movie that I have no desire to write about or even really think about. It's one of those movies that while I was sitting there I was wishing that I could be watching "Training Day" instead.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is a great way to make up for watching "Safe House"; it renews your appreciation for movies, and for Denzel.

The Shawshank Redemption

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

An aside

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

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

Read Paper Here.

We Bought A Zoo and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

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

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

Mission Impossible 4

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

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

Catching-Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Philosophy of Casablanca

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

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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