Monsters vs Aliens, Ping Pong Playa and The Hurt Locker

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

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

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

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

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

Ice Age 3 and Public Enemies

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

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

The Taking of Pelham 123 and Year One

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

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

Transformers 2

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

Imagine That

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

Eminem vs U2

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

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

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

Up

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

Terminator Salvation

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

Star Trek, Angels and Demons

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

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

Knowing, Fast and Furious, Wolverine and Pulp Fiction

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

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

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

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

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

Watchmen

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

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

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

The Best Film of 2008

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

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

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

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

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

The Wrestler

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

Defiance

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

Gran Torino

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

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

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

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

Slumdog Millionaire and Valkyrie

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

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

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

Australia

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

Quantum of Solace

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

RocknRolla

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

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

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

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

Changeling

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

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

W.

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

Appaloosa and Body of Lies

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

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

Burn After Reading

My weekend movie viewing ended on a positive note. I gave De Niro and Pacino respect, and was dissapointed, but with the Coen brothers my hopes were met. This is probably one of the most obvious arguments for picking a movie based on director(s) rather than based on the actor(s). Of course this is no "No Country For Old Men", but then it wasn't trying to be. It was a dark, satirical comedy with off-the-wall characters, set to a relatively quick pace. I laughed hard, I enjoyed the performances of actors in roles not typically their own, and I wasn't treated like an absolute idiot. What more could one want out of a movie? At the same time I realize that after the bad experience on Friday, any movie would seem good. To be fair, this movie doesn't really have any redeeming values, it doesn't have any values at all really. Everyone deserved what they got or didn't get, and there wasn't any happiness on screen. I know what you're thinking; 'Peter, dark comedies aren't supposed to make you feel good'. But I would reply that the great ones, like "Dr Strangelove" maybe don't offer any hope or happiness, but they do scare you, jolt your everyday life to let you know that there's scary stuff out there and the people around you, the ones running the show are the scariest. "Burn After Reading" almost made me feel that, but it didn't go quite far enough as far as I'm concerened. Maybe next time the Coen brothers can cross "No Country For Old Men" with "Burn After Reading" and make something that burns an idea into our minds and makes us laugh too.

Righteous Kill

It's been four weeks since my last movie, it felt like an eternity.  Originally I had hope to go to two movies tonight, but due to theater timetables it didn't work out this time.  I had to make a hard choice; which movie to see?  Of course I plan on seeing the other movie tomorrow, but still which movie you see first is a very important decision, and hopefully I chose well...  I made my pick based on respect.  Respect for two of the greatest actors ever; De Niro and Pacino.  "Righteous Kill" is their third best movie together, which by the way also makes it their worst movie together (do the math).  I'm going to make this review easy on myself; this was a bad movie with two great actors giving alright performances.  It was a bad movie because it insulted my intelligence and didn't really go anywhere interesting.  It had De Niro and Pacino doing De Niro and Pacino stuff, but not De Niro and Pacino at their peak.  "Heat" had De Niro and Pacino together, at their peak not only doing their stuff, but talking about their stuff, which was just wonderful.  "The Godfather Part II" had both doing their stuff, not together mind you, but there on the same screen nevertheless.  "Righteous Kill" had the unintended affect of making me think more about those two films instead of the movie I was sitting through.  Hopefully tomorrow my movie order pays off and I get to finish off with a good movie to write about.

The Clone Wars

George Lucas made one of the greatest American movies, and it's all been downhill since then... That is too harsh, for every Jar Jar Binks, there's been an Obi Wan Kenobi, so I shouldn't complain. Last night the kids and I saw his new animated film "Star Wars: The Clone Wars". It shows once again that his strength is the visual representation of a vivid imagination, and his weakness is anything to do with human beings. Everything in this movie looked great and felt just like a "live action" Star Wars movie, except for the actors. Unfortunately this can be said about his last three "live action" movies as well. I enjoyed the action, the space battles, the locations and the light sabers. I winced whenever a line of dialogue was uttered, and I had a hard time figuring out how the digital representation of Natalie Portman could be so unhot, even creepy. There was a very sweet scene in which the Jedi along with the currently good Clone Troopers are scaling a cliff, literally fighting uphill as the Droid army attempts to hold them back. Just the idea of this battle was cool, and the filmmakers and artists did a great job of creating this sequence. It reminded me of the scene when Jabba is planning on executing Luke, Han and Chewie. It reminded me of the Battle for Hoth. It reminded me of Luke and Leia trying to escape from the Stormtroopers in "A New Hope". I like scenes that bring back good memories, so in that way "Clone Wars" was a fun way to continue the Star Wars experience.

Tropic Thunder

Alright, this isn't the best comedy ever made. I didn't expect it to be, but for some reason I thought it would be closer. That's not to say that it didn't have its moments, and it sure did make me laugh much more than most recent comedies. "Juno" and before that "Napoleon Dynamite" were original, honestly funny films. "Tropic Thunder" is not in that category, but then it's not trying to be. Not too suprisingly it's more like "Zoolander", which was very funny for what it was. The problem is that lampooning a specific genre only works for so long, and "Tropic Thunder" doesn't hold up for the duration. All the main characters fulfill their contractual obligations, but only Robert Downey Jr. puts in any overytime. That being said, I can only imagine how blown away by his perfomance I would have been if only I hadn't seen any trailers. Once again those idiots at the trailer factory gave us way too much of the best stuff, leaving me with a bad case of deja vu there in the theater. Why pay for what I got for free 100 times in the last two months? That might be unfair though, because there is a little bit that wasn't in the trailer, and Downey s worth the price of admission. Then there's Tom Cruise. This morning it came to me that he was probably trying in some strange way to pay tribute to Peter Sellers in "Dr. Strangelove". This is a tall order to fill, and Tom wasn't up to the task. He was funny in a "Magnolia" sort of way, but once again, it didn't quite live up to the hype. Now of course my mind is making some connections; Tom Cruise was paying homage to a character from a Stanley Kubrick film, whos final film he starred in... and that character was played by an actor who was mentioned by Robert Downey Jr's character in a speech earlier in the film... Is that an intentional circular connection meant to add depth to an otherwise shallow Hollywood comedy? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Personally if it makes me think about the movie more, then I'd have to say it was good.

X-Files: I Want To Believe

First off, I didn't mention last week that "The Dark Knight" was my 100th posting, which I thought was pretty cool, but enough about that, here's my 101st posting:

Rob, Justin and I would rent VHS tapes of early X-Files episodes down at the only video store in Buena Vista. We'd get some snacks, some Mountain Dew, and turn off the lights and watch Mulder and Scully delve into the mysteries of the unexplained. It was fun, and it got better as the seasons progressed. When we moved to Colorado Springs, it quickly became a tradition to gather together Sunday night and watch the new episodes. Soon enough Jess got roped in and all of a sudden we had good food to go along with the conspiracies, aliens, the Cancer Man, tongue-in-cheek humor and people with stretchy fingers. Since then I haven't commited myself to a television program, and my life is better for it (as far as I know). Watching "I Want To Believe" brought back all those good memories for me. The actors have aged about ten years or so, and so have their characters. The plot of the film was independent from the soap operaish storyline of the final episodes of the tv show. This is good, because instead of being a continuation of the show it was more of a revisiting. Scully and Mulder had a good chemistry, and it remains here in the film. Chris Carter, the director of this film as well as the creator of the series, has done a great job of capturing what was great about X-Files and telling a thoughtful sotry at the same time. Unlike what has become vogue in recent psychological thrillers, this film actually searches for answers. Now in typical X-Files tradition it asks more questions than it provides answers, but still it more interesting to ask than to ignore the obvious. If any of you see the film, the most thought-provoking question for me was the discussion that Scully and Mulder have about God's purpose in creating certain people. I know I'm being vague, but I'd hate to give away too much. It's just interesting that two dynamic characters in a secular film can struggle so realistically with a subject that we Christians avoid like the plague. Anyways, if you liked the X-Files, this is for you. If not, then go see "Wall-E" again.

The Dark Knight

Where to begin? There is so much that could be written and discussed about this film, and this will just be the start for me. Of course I am only in the early stages of contemplating the overwhelming scope of the film, so don't be surprised if I miss entire points or contradict myself later on. "The Dark Knight" is a great sequel. In that, I mean that it depends so deeply on the first film, that you must have seen "Batman Begins" to fully appreciate and understand this film. For me that is a strength, I don't like treading over old ground just for the sake of newbies, and I respect that the director Christopher Nolan didn't dumb it down. At the same time, this film was not as introspective as the first. There was less Bruce Wayne struggling with Batman and more Bruce Wayne being Batman. I understand how for most people that would be a good selling point, but as I get older I prefer to know why people do things than to just watch them doing things. Perhaps that is too harsh a criticism, because the doing, the action was incredible, and there was plenty of the internal struggling, the hard choices and the twisting plot to make anyone happy. And there is the point of the the movie; 'choices'. Here is where I would start to give away too much by saying any more, but I was pleasantly surprised with how the film was obvious and subtle in how the central thread revealed itself. At first it seemed as thought the film was on one track, then after a gradual shift, bam! it hit me that I had been taken someplace completed unexpected. I will say that the cast of characters this time around was even bigger and stronger than the first film. There are six main characters, each of whom is essential to the plot, which in and of itself lends complexity and depth to the story. I especially like the relationship that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and Alfred (Michael Caine) have in the film. In the other Batman films Alfred was a Johnny-on-the-spot butler, here as in "Batman Begins" he is so much more, and Batman would be lost without him. And Finally for now, the best part of this new Batman is far and away Heath Ledger's Joker. I find it difficult to separate my continued sadness over his passing, from a great appreciation of his work in this film. He does become immersed in the role, yet he is still there himself, that same kid from "A Knights Tale" and "10 Things I Hate About You". As Joker, he is everything I could want in a villain; evil, intelligent, ruthless, creepy, funny, unpredictable, and violent. Batman needed a worthy opponent, and in Heath Ledger's Joker he got more than he bargained for. "Do you want to see a magic trick?"

Journey to the Center of the Earth, College Road Trip and Hellboy 2

Ashley, Aravis and I got to see a movie, Jude and I got to see a movie and I got to see my own movie too. All in all it was a good weekend for movies, especially considering I worked Saturday and got a late movie-going start. The girls and I got to see "College Road Trip". Martin Lawrence is an aquired taste, I think he's funny, but he's funny in his own way if you know what I mean. The premise of the movie is that the Martin Lawrence character takes his daughter (played by Raven Symone) to visit a couple prospect colleges. She wants to go to Georgetown, which is 700 miles away, he wants her to attend Northwestern which is 23 minutes away. The little brother and genius pig tag along to make the trip more exciting, and poof! you've got the makings of a great movie. It was fun, maybe not the stand in line for four hours, see it in IMAX, stay awake at night thinking about it kind of fun. But it is fun to see with your 4 and 6 year old daughters. So if you have some, then this movie is for you.
Jude and I saw "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D" and it was 3D. I've seen a couple other films that utilized this new 3D technology, and this by far did it the best. As expected the movie was mostly an attempt to recreate the fun of a Disneyland ride. There were incredible sights, thrilling speed, and startling surprises. Brendan Fraser is a entertaining actor, and his presence alone at least keeps a smile on my face. The other two characters played by Josh Hutcherson and Anita Briem were well cast, and although the movie was on the rails in every way, it was still fun. Jude loved it, so what else really matters?
I like "Hellboy 2" for the same reasons I liked "Hellboy". Unique comic book heros, fighing crazy bad guys in cool places. The humor and chemistry worked for me in both films, and this time around I really liked the artistic vision created onscreen. I didn't like Guillermo del Toro's last film "Pan's Labyrinth", but it was a good try. I did like his "Blade 2" and the first "Hellboy", so he's on a pretty good track since he's about to be directing "The Hobbit". Anyways, back to the movie at hand. "Hellboy 2" is goofy, the premise and look of the characters are all goofy and far fetched. But it's a comic book, so that's alright. Sometimes it's good to go over the top, and if you go over the top you might as well go all the way over. I like that Hellboy smoke cigars, I like that he gets pissed when the bad guy causes him to drop it, and I like that when the fight's over he picks it back up and continues to smoke it. What I like most of all is the disclaimer at the end of the movie where the filmmakers try to distance themselves from tabacco use depicted in the film. Maybe in "Hellboy 3" they can have him trying to quit, getting really grumpy and they can use this as a tagline: "There'll be Cold Turkey in Hell Tonight!" or maybe: "Cold Turkey is a Dish Best Served Hot!"

Hancock

Some movies seem to exist merely to pass the time. These are the movies that I don't regret seeing, but in retrospect I feel as though I could have been doing something better with my time, like watching a better movie. "Hancock" could have been such a better movie. So much potential, so many strenghts, but alas, as DeNiro says in "Copland" this movie blew it. What Hollywood needs to realize is that you can not be everything to everone in the same movie. If you want to aim for the lowest common denominator, just hire Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Jack Black and have a camera crew follow them around for a week. You're sure to have enough funny stuff to fill a two hour movie slot. On the other hand, if you want to put a twist on the super hero genre, making a introspective action film, then go ahead, hire Will Smith and make him a brooding, alcoholic, despised, has-been. Just don't try to throw in the Adam Sandler humor too. Then to make things worse, instead of trusting the instincts of the original concept, they felt as though we needed a dumbed-down, paint-by-the-numbers, typical Hollywood ending. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for some dark, shocking twist. I'm OK with a happy ending and all, but give me a break. Can't they be just a little more creative than this? Will Smith is a good actor, and has been in some of the most entertaining Hollywood blockbusters. He did good, but this movie could have been a whole lot better.

No Direction Home and I'm Not There

First off, let me say that I can hardly believe that "No Direction Home" originally was broadcast almost 3 years ago! It's one of those films that sticks with me, and now whenever I hear Dylan music, I see footage from this film. I know I've talked to quite a few of you about how much I liked the film when I saw it, and now that I've seen "I'm Not There", I have an even greater appreciation for the first film. Let me start again by reviewing the weaker film, even though it's chronologically the most recently viewed.

"I'm Not There" tries to present itself in the style of a Bob Dylan song. You're never supposed to be sure about the order of context of the images and characters that you're seeing. Everything is meant to seem random and far out, yet be deep and meaningful at the same time. Somehow Dylan is able to convey strong emotion with lyrics that otherwise make no sense at all. This movie fails utterly in its attempt to do the same. Its only success is in one performance that captures Dylan as he was and an other performance that doesn't seem to fit in a Dylan movie, yet works on its own somehow. First, Cate Blanchett does meet all the expectations of the buzz surrounding her portrayal of Dylan. At first it is distracting, especially considering some of the gender specific issues dealt with, but then she gets rolling, and delivers some dialogue that seems so perfectly Dylan, that I was blown away. She is for sure one of the best actresses (or actors) of all time. The other positive note was Heath Ledger's performance. He was convincing and filled out the role that was written for him. Unfortunately like so much of the film, the part which he played didn't really fit into place at all. As a stand alone character, it definitely was good, and really that's all you can expect from an actor, the rest is up to the director, and in this case the director let down the whole cast.

"No Direction Home" is Martin Scorsese's documentary about Bob Dylan. Recently I wrote about "Shine A Light", which was a concert film, a brief glimpse at a day in the life of the Rolling Stones. "No Direction Home" is a true documentary, investigating the life of a man from not only his own perspective, but also from those who were there, his friends, co-workers and followers. Just the old footage and interviews would have made for an interesting film, but throw in Scorsese's direction and you've got greatness. Scorsese tells Dylan's life not as a biography, but as dramatic piece of history. Here's a man who was the leader of a movement, yet refuses to acknowledge his role, and even went to the extreme of turning his back on the movement, quite literally. The film shows Dylan as a selfish, introverted genius. My guess is that Scorsese is one of the only directors who can so directly portray a mans dark side, yet in the end he is unequivocally the hero. If you want to learn more about one of the most influential men in American culture, and you want some great music too, this film is for you. My favorite parts take place when Dylan stared playing an electric guitar. Just listen to the music, and watch how the crowd reacts, it's amazing. This film ends so early in Dylan's career that I can only hope that Scorsese would make two or three more films continuing the story.

Wall-E

Jess, Jude, Ashley, Aravis and I all went to see "Wall-E" last night. About half-way through the previews Aravis asked me when the movie was going to start? Aravis doesn't like previews. Then the previews ended and they played the short film "Presto", which was itself worth the price of admission. I was laughing so hard, it was a good thing it was only a short film or I may have hurt myself. Then finally the movie began. It's going to become more and more difficult to review Pixar movies, since they are so consistently great. They have all been in a class all their own, and really can only be compared to themselves and great live-action films. "Wall-E" is no different. A character who cannot speak and was drawn in a computer gives a great performance. The visuals are rich and beautiful, even though they consist primarily of a desolate, trash strewn landscape. The screenplay is intelligent and thoughtful without being preachy or demeaning (see "Happy Feet" if you want to be demeaned). The use of music and cultural references throughout the film was genius, it really added a layer of context for me. In that regard I felt as though Pixar somehow moved even closer to making an important movie, not just an entertaining one. What I mean by that is that up till now they have been imaginative stroytellers, perhaps they are moving in the direction of using that talent for a higher purpose. Of course that is both exciting and scary at the same time. Spielberg made "Schindler's List", Mel Gibson made "The Passion of the Christ" and Oliver Stone is making "W". My point is that truly great films have more than just great stories, and I think Pixar is on the path to a truly great film. "Wall-E" is funny, heart-warming, exciting, stunning and memorable. Now I know what you're thinking; "tell us something we didn't already know!"... Since I don't have anything new to tell you, I'm just going to show you my list of the order of Pixar films from 'most best' to 'less best'... Here it is:

1. "Finding Nemo"
2. "Monsters Inc."
3. "Ratatouille"
4. "Toy Story 2"
5. "Wall-E"
6 "The Incredibles"
7. "A Bug's Life"
8. "Toy Story"
9. "Cars"

Hopefully "Toy Story 3" will be at the top of the list next year, at the very least it'll bump "Toy Story 2" down to #5. Batman's almost here! Aren't you excited yet?!

Mongol and Wanted

When you go see two movies in the same night, it is important to see the better film second, so that it will leave a longer lasting impression on your mind. Unfortuantely, due to theater scheduling, this sometimes is impossible. Rob and I went to the downtown Colorado Springs movie theater to see "Mongol" at its last showing of the night (8:00) at the only theater showing it in town. Then we headed south to one of the cineplexes to catch "Wanted" at 10:45. If this world were a better place, they'd be showing "Mongol" on 16 sceens all over town, and "Wanted" would have gone directly to DVD. I'm going to review "Wanted" first to help you avoid the same bad taste in your mouth that I had last night.

Don't get me wrong, "Wanted" had its moments. The special effects are top of the line, and Nate's girlfriend is at the peak of her game, making what she does look effortless. Too bad the movie wasn't about Angelina's character, and even though about 90 minutes of the 110 minute movie were special effects, it wasn't quite enough. Ultimately what made this a bad movie was that it couldn't be "Fight Club" Every twist, every turn, every shocking revelation and every extreme camera angle were trying so hard, but not quite making it. Not everyone is going to see this as an attempt to duplicate "Fight Club" but I feel it's undeniable. The narrator/main character is a wimpy loser who is really a macho winner. His boss' face ripples in slow motion. Someone is not who we think they are (suprise, suprise!). The soft spoken rational man must at one point become the motivitional leader with creative uses of obscenities. Must I go on? If you already have seen "Fight Club" and liked it, watch it again, come on over to my house and watch it with me, we'll make popcorn. If you haven't seen "Fight Club" yet and you like Meatloaf, what's wrong with you? If you don't like Meatlof, or if you're thinking 'I like cold meatloaf sandwiches.' then maybe you should just forget about this review and go see "Wall-e" again while you wait for my review of that movie.

"Mongol" was everything that "Wanted" wasn't and so much more. This film took me to a time and place I know very little about and made me want to know more. It's amazing how there seems to be a basic thread throughout history regarding man's struggle not only to survive, but to dominate. Who better to use as an example than Genghis Khan? I don't have any idea how accurate this representation of his early life is, but I intend to find out. What really matters in a movie like this isn't the accuracy, but the presentation. The locations were lush, beautiful, dreary, and unique. The characters were rich, deep, hard and beautiful. The story was interesting, thoughtful and patient (which does mean slow, but in a good way). The battle sequences were as good as any other movie, but not too long and were not the center of the film. And the music was perfect, conjuring up all the right colors at the right times. I especially liked the wolf on the mountain, the filmmakers aren't afraid to use some imagery to explain some things that aren't easy to explain. So in conclusion, if "Mongol" comes to your town, go ahead and see it, just make sure you don't accidently stumble into one of the 16 sceens showing "Wanted".

The Happening

All you need is love.

"The Happening" is a great movie. M. Night Shyamalan is a master storyteller, and once again he delivers. He's not a tradional storyteller, he has found the secret to using all aspects of film to tell his story. Every layer of the film is used, from the camera's perspective, the actor's expressions, the news clips on television, as well as the music and sound. What seperates Shyamalan from your everyday director is that nothing is a gimmick, everything is a piece of the story's puzzle. In the next paragraph I discuss some things that only people who've already seen the movie should read. Here I can only say that the film could be about many different things, there is an obvious level that I think Shyamalan uses to misdirect is, or perhaps to comment on our gullibility. But I personally believe that what he ultimately is suggesting is that information isn't necessarily truth, and therefore is worse than not knowing anything. "The Happening" does what most movies today don't even come close to, it gives you something to think and talk about.

This movie is about love, and the its healing properties. It isn't about evolution, climate change, pollution, government conspiracies or bio-warfare. It's about love. What I think is amazing is that it deals with all of those issues, or perhaps uses those issues as a backdrop, but never does it really stray from its true purpose. Of couse most great films do this, for some reason I was thinking of "Key Largo" just now. It is a film (like so many other Bogart films) about man's dual nature. Sure there's a hurricaine, gangsters, palm trees, a girl and an open bar, but really it's about what Bogart is going to do. Is he going to do the easy thing or the right thing? To keep us interested a good director gives us plenty to occupy our eyes and ears, but a great director fills up our minds too. The two questions I would ask those of you who've already seen "The Happening" are this; 1. Did the old lady at the end of the film get infected, or was here fate a result of something else? 2. What caused the infection to end? Was it somehow related to Marky Mark?

Kung Fu Panda and You Don't Mess With The Zohan

"Kung Fu Panda" is as good as it gets without being Pixar. It was funny, exciting, good-hearted and well animated. Sure, on the car ride home I had to tell Aravis not to use Kung Fu on her brother, but that's a small price to pay for the lasting entertainment value. Jack Black didn't just voice the Panda, the filmmakers made Jack Black into a Panda, and that's a good thing. From the opening title sequence and song (sung by Black) things were on the right track. The humor was just intelligent enough to have me laughing, along with the cartoon slapstick to keep the kids happy. I think you can tell when the filmmakers are truly considering their audience, and the makers of "Kung Fu Panda" got it all right. Even to the point that the villain was appropriately foreboding, without being too scary. There is a scene midway throught the film when we see him chained in prison, and the setup is great, showing the extreme to which his captors have gone, but it never quite leaves the realm of 'cartoon' therefore making it suitable for the kids. My kids and I liked the movie, and if that isn't good enough for you, and don't know what is.

I have quite a few things I could say about "You Don't Mess With The Zohan". One of the things I could say is; it was a very funny movie. Something else I could say is; Adam Sandler did a great job creating and filling out an interesting, entertaining character. I could also say that; the overall story was good-spirited and positive. All of these things are true, but last night as I thought what to write about this movie I decided to focus on something different: This movie unintentionally succeeds in acomplishing the opposite of what it intends. At the risk of looking for meaning in an Adam Sandler movie, here's what I'm talking about. The main character (Zohan) is a promiscuous Israeli who initially is at odds with his Palestinian neighbors until he falls 'in love' with one of them. The movie is trying to tell us we should all just get along, because all we need is love, and by love it means, well you know what I mean. Anyways, what I thought was interesting is that the only people this message is going to work for are adolescent American boys. This movie has gone beyond simplifying the issue. It's even gone past dumbing-down the issue. "You Don't Mess With The Zohan" has mentally retarded the issue of the Middle Eastern conflict. Perhaps I misspoke when I said that the filmmakers unintentionally did this. I don't know what the purpose of this movie was. I hope it was harmless fun. I suspect it was a misguided attempt at a good message. I'm afraid it was something else and I'm afraid it's this kind of mainstream thinking (and I say 'thinking' loosely) that will lead us to our next President-elect.

Indiana Jones Part 4

I have some good news and I have some bad news. You want to hear the bad news first? "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It's not even "The Last Crusade". Maybe my perception of both of those movies is so tainted by childhood and fond memories that it is unfair of me to compare them to the newest film, but I can't help it.

The good news is that it's Indiana Jones, through and through. Now sure, we get to see Indiana do some stuff we never expected to see him doing (and to be any more specific might ruin some suprises, so I won't). But even in these new developements, he handles them like Indian Jones would. It's never been the years acording to Indiana, rather the mileage, so don't let any detractors or Indy-bashers keep you from seeing this movie. It is fun, and in keeping with the spirit of the series. As I just left the theater an hour or so ago, I find that the film is already growing on me. I especially liked one of the closing scenes, and I can imagine what Spielberg's intent was in shooting it the way he did. What'll be best about this movie in the long run is finding ways to argue both sides of the "Was it a good or bad Indiana Jones movie?" question. Sometimes the most entertaining films are also in some ways the worst, if you don't believe me, watch "Jurrasic Park" again. And I don't mean that in a bad way, perhaps we (and when I say "we" I mean myself) take movies too seriously, and every once in a while we need a great director along with a great actor to make a fun movie, like "Indiana Jones 4".

Speed Racer

The Wachowski brothers made changed movies forever when they made "The Matrix". I'd never seen a film like it before, and nothing since has made such an impact. I'm not talking just about a specific special effect, but rather how the special effects were used to contribute to the story. The action, costumes, visuals, dialouge, and special effects all worked together to create a great film. Unfortunately, as with most sequels, the Wachowski brothers lost sight of their vision and the subsequent movies were bogged down with trying to be bigger or more convoluted or something I can't explain that just didn't work.


I talked about "The Matrix" because when I was watching "Speed Racer" last night I felt as though the brothers had recaptured that same energy. This is an exciting movie, full of energy, vibrant colors and speed. It also is a well made film, flowing smoothly, giving us dynamic characters and a good story. Notice that this isn't a great film, in the sense that the story definitely is there as a vehicle for the visuals, but that's not a bad thing. I hated "Bewoulf" because it showed us things that should have been shown with real actors instead of some animation gimmick. Here in "Speed Racer" the style used is right on. The Wachowski brothers and the artists involved have created brought a cartoon to life like never before. I was reminded of "Sin City" sure, but that was a dark comic book, and here is a bright Japanese televison cartoon on the big screen.

Last week I criticized "Iron Man" for its lack of something. That 'something' is sometimes difficult to explain, but let's just say that "Speed Racer" has it. Maybe this isn't the right word, but 'soul' comes to mind. You know how you can tell the difference between a movie made by people who just want to reap the profits, and a film made by people in love with filmmaking? That's the difference between "Iron Man" and "Speed Racer".

Finally, I want to be sure when reviewing movie under the "R" rating to note the appropriateness for younger viewers. I sure don't want to do a Focus on the Family bad-word/cigarette-lit/talking-back-to-parents count, but like I said last week, it's not cool that Hollywood targets kids with unsuitable movies. That being said, I did take Jude and Ashley to "Speed Racer" and there were really only two things that I had a problem with. One was a scene that combined Piranhas with the 'Little Dutch Boy' fable, and another negative use of a finger later on in the film. If I had made the movie I wouldn't have included either of those scenes, but I feel as though in this case the good-natured spirit of the film far outweighed any knocks against it.

Less than two weeks until Indiana Jones, I'm so excited.

Iron Man

I'm going to do this review a little different, I'm going to try to address a bunch of issues real quickly, so here goes:

1. "Iron Man", although it's being advertised quite a lot durring kids tv programming is not for little kids. It's got some subject matter that is a little too mature for children, think James Bond and you'll know what I'm talking about. But that's alright kids, because we've got "Wall-e" coming out soon, and that'll make up for any and all movies you may feel like you're missing out on.

2. Ben completely ruined "Iron Man" for me because of the Onion web clip he posted over on the family site. It was unavoidable to compare the "feature length film" to the trailer, and let's just say that the trailer was better. The trailer was like the Cliff Notes of the movie. You get all, and I do mean all the best stuff without the boring character developement filler. If you haven't seen the trailer yet, go to the link for trailers to the right of this blog, and save yourself 8 bucks.

3. It's kind of hard to appreciate "Iron Man" on any level after you've just seen the new Batman trailer. Am I doing it again? Am I building up too much anticipation in my own mind for this movie? I sincerely hope not, but it feels like the days are dragging so slowly waiting for July 18th.

4. Maybe you shouldn't be thinking about the trailers you saw before the movie while you're watching the movie, but I don't know if I could be more dissapointed than I am with this "Prince Caspian" .... ( I used the "...." because I was going to say "crap", then I thought I'd say "excrement", perhaps I'd even shock some people by using a real bad word, but I decided to leave it up to your own discretion. Anyways, how can a group of filmmakers get so much so wrong? I am sad. Perhaps this just means that the BBC version it, and I need to realize that the best way to enjoy this series is the way it was meant to be enjoyed, in my own imagination.

5. In closing, the best part of "Iron Man" was Robert Downey Jr's final line, and the second best was the action scene towards the end of the film because I actually drifted off for a few minutes and felt well rested for the drive home.

P.S. I was just thinking that it would have been a better movie if they would have had Harry Connick Jr. and Robert Downey Jr. playing brothers, one being Iron Man, the other maybe as Skillet Man or something like that.