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.