The Simpsons

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

Ratatouille

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

Harry Potter 5 vs Indiana Jones

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

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

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

Die Hard 4 and Transformers

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

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

Surf's Up

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

Fantastic 4 Part 2 and My Impression Of The Summer

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

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

Ocean's 13 and Focus on the Family

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

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

Pirates of the Caribbean 3

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

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

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

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

12 Angry Men and Spiderman 3

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

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

Amazing Grace

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

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

The Invisible and The Sugarland Express

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

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

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

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

Grindhouse

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

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

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

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

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

The Lookout

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

TMNT and Shooter

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

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

300

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

Black Snake Moan

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

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

Ghostrider and Oscar Afterthoughts

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

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

The Last King of Scotland

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

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

"Transformers" is going to be awesome!

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

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

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

Little Miss Sunshine and Children of Men

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

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