The Invisible and The Sugarland Express

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

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

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

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

Grindhouse

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

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

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

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

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

The Lookout

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

TMNT and Shooter

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

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

300

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

Black Snake Moan

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

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

Ghostrider and Oscar Afterthoughts

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

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

The Last King of Scotland

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

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

"Transformers" is going to be awesome!

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

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

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

Little Miss Sunshine and Children of Men

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

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

Babel

Alright, so this was going to be a blog about "Pan's Labyrinth", "Smokin' Aces" and "Babel", but as I was writing the first two reviews, my computer got accidently shut down and so I'm not going to start over again. I will say that "Pan" has nothing to do with Peter Pan, and although it was visually interesting, I can't reccomend it. "Aces", well if you liked the preview, you'll like the movie, if you didn't like the preview the movie has nothing for you.

Now on to Babel: It's been out for a while, and I must admit I only went to see it because of the Academy Award nomination. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu (the director) also made "21 Grams", which I really liked. From the previews for "Babel", the style of storytelling looked exactly like "21 Grams", that's not bad, it's just one of those things that once you've seen it done well, you don't need to see it again. Also the Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchett combination, it just didn't seem appealing to me, so when the movie first came out I didn't go. I was wrong on both counts. First off, the stroytelling style was not the same as "21 Grams". There was some overlap (backwards and forwards) in the multiple storylines, but there wasn't an elaborate effort to tie the stories together. Actually, the fact that all the stories were connected was completely unnecessary. I thought about it later, that there could have been the same four, strories without any connection, and the movie would have been exactly the same. Perhaps the interconnection was a little distracting, but I understand why Alejandro did it; audiences want one big movie. He made four little movies, and had to make them work together with more than just the same message. Some people might not get the message, so need the traditional interconnection. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett only were in one quarter of the movie. They worked really well together, I think especially Cate Blanchett. For the limited time and movement that she was allowed, I completely understood her character and point of view. Nate and I were talking about this movie just fifteen minutes before I saw it. He had observed that Brad Pitt reminded him of Pop. His greying beard, his face, and his movements and body language. Although I like Brad Pitt, he usually has very similar performances from one movie to the next, which has led me to question his acting ability. Nate was right, and I must admit that Pitt is a great actor. I think it was an understated approach, very thoughtful and somewhat laid-back. That combined with his eyes especially, but his beard too that would make me agree with Nate. I was reminded of a younger Pop in Tom Hanks perfomance in "Saving Private Ryan" and now we get the current Pop in "Babel" Do you think Pop will get any royalty checks?

Letters From Iwo Jima

When I saw "Flags of Our Fathers" last October, I had praise for Clint Eastwood's exploration into personal principles versus duty to your country. I was dissapointed with the lack of direction when it came to battle sequences and the unfolding of the plot. There were too many characters and too much Saving Private Ryan, when the focus should have been on the three main characters. I'm not sure if Eastwood filmed both of these movies at the same time, or what his editing process was, but "Letters From Iwo Jima" is a completely different, and better movie. The thread that is meant to tie the movie together is letters that are being written and sent from Iwo Jima. These are primarily letters written by Japanese soldiers and sailors as they await the impending attack by U.S. forces. This is more than just a gimmick, the letters allow us to know what these men are thinking. Considering that controlling emotions and placing honor and county above all else is predominant in their culture, reading their personal letters seems to be the only way to know how they truly feel. Now, the whole letter aspect would have made for a good movie, what makes this movie great is that Eastwood focuses on one man to personify the Japanese soldier. Ken Watanabe is the new General in charge of the forces on Iwo Jima. He has been to America and has American friends. He has a wife and children who he loves, living in Japan. He has a great tactical mind, and has a gift for leading men in battle. He cares deeply for the men he is responsible for, and does not make decisions without putting them first. He loves his country, and desires to protect and honor it. You can probably see that if all these things are true of one man, there are bound to be some struggles in a battle like the one for Iwo Jima. This is not an anti-war film, nor is it an anti-Amrican film. The conclusions drawn about the Japanese soldiers do not translate to the present day terrorists in the Middle East. This is a film designed to make us think about who we are, and who the man on the other side is. From a Christian perspective I feel that this is something we should all think about. Did God make (fill in the blank)? Obviously durring World War II, the Japanese attacked our country. Germans invaded our allies countries. Then Communists tried to spread their influence, and even more recently our country has been attacked again. Should we just passively take all attacks, and try just to understand the enemy? I don't believe so, but to dehumanize, or to make blanket judgements, or to put our trust in a government that... well you get my point. Go see "Letters From Iwo Jima".

Open Season and Perfume

The first movie I saw in 2007 was "Open Season". Jess and I took the kids to the Dollar Theater ($1.50 Theater) on New Years Day. It was entertaining, yet as is the case with most comedies (animated and otherwise) it wasn't as funny as the trailers promised.

I didn't take the kids to see "Perfume", I don't think they would really have liked it anyway. This is a movie about style. So much is it about style that character and story are on the side, and motivation and purpose are non-existant. We follow a boy from birth through his mid-twenties as he realizes his gift of extraordinary smell, and follows his nose to a disturbing conclusion. Now here I'm going to comment on the theater I went to. It's called Kimball's Twin Peak Theater and it is located downtown in Colorado Springs. If you want to see a film with an audience who is there to appreciate film, and if you want a beer while you watch, this is the only theater in Colorado Springs where you can. Of course it would be sweet to see "Pulp Fiction" at this theater, so as to enjoy a glass of beer while Travolta talks about enjoying a glass of beer at a theater, but sadly I never have had that chance. I did get to enjoy a beer while watching "Kill Bill" which I guess is close enough. Back to "Perfume", the reason I brought up the beer is that I had a beer, actually a Laughing Lab Scottish Ale while I watched the film. This film is about capturing scent, a visual representation of smells on the big sceen. To sit back and enjoy a good beer, slowly over the course of the film, I think actually made me appreciate the film more. Of course from what I understand there are other specific films that benefit from mind altering substances, that is not quite what I'm refering to. Instead of shoveling popcorn into your face, or eating two movie sized boxes of candy, maybe it would be better to find what compliments the film and enjoy them both. I know for myself movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and The Passion of the Christ" are foodless/beverageless films. Animated films at the $1.50 Theater are no holds barred events. Watching "The Big Lebowski" is a good time to break out the heavy cream, vodka and Kahlua. "Lord of the Rings" it's rabbit stew and boiled potatoes. And of course you can probably guess what goes well with a viewing of "Silence of the Lambs".

It's A Wonderful Life

It's been a couple of years since I've seen "It's A Wonderful Life". I saw it for the first time when we were living on Mare Island, and it's one of those movies that stirs up memories every time I watch it. This was the first time that I watched the movie and realized how amazing the performances are. Perhaps it comes from actually experiencing life, and having a little bit of adulthood under my belt, but I felt a connection to Stewart's character so much more this time. In my previous viewings, I had great admiration for the character, but it was that distant, recognizing that the character is admirable, not the knowing what he's going through kind. Many people have pointed out that "It's A Wonderful Life" wasn't intended as a Christmas film, but because it takes place in the hours leading up to Christmas, it kind of has been hijacked as a Holiday movie. Although I love to watch it this time of year, on this most recent viewing I see how great this film is, it works in so many ways, and is probably one of the best films ever made. I would for sure put it in the same category as "Casablanca", and that's saying a lot.

Blood Diamond

I hesitated seeing this movie when it first came out a few weeks ago. Edward Zwick has come so close in his last few movies, that I realized that any hopes or expectations I might have would probably be too high. "The Last Samurai" was an awesome film, until the last ten minutes. Zwick can tell a great story, and capture with rich detail his characters and their motivations. But when it comes to sending us on our way, he doesn't seem to know how to end his movies. Unfortunately I felt almost exactly the same at the end of "Blood Diamond". There was a very good performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, as a very Bogartesque bad-guy/good guy. As was true in the great Bogart films, there is a main character who is focused unwaiveringly on doing what is right. There are side characters along the way that either hinder or aide in the mission of the first character. And then there is the Bogart character, who is in it for himself, he'll be an whichever side is winning, regardless of morality. Of course Bogart always came around, and shocked everybody by actually doing what was right, even if it meant risking his own life. What Zwick doesn't realize is that is the end of the movie. We don't need Bogart to explain himself, and we don't need a political message preached from a pulpit, especially if the whole movie already was a political message. If you didn't know that racism, rape, profiteering, mutilation and murder were wrong before you saw this movie, I don't think a speech at the end of the film is going to help you. My suggestion, go see this movie, and when you think that Leo has pulled his "Bogart move" then get up, find your cell phone and keys, and quietly exit the building. Now that was a good

The Good Shepherd

Sometimes I see a film, enjoy it, but I don't really feel like writing about it. "The Good Shepherd" is one of those films. Now I've decided to muscle through this review mostly to see if I can understand myself what makes some films great, just not good enough to want to write about.

The first thing I think about is the title, and the timing of this film's release. It opened on Christmas weekend, and I just saw it on Christmas Eve. There is a good shepherd, but there weren't any good shepherds in this film. There were some shepherds who were better then others, but I must say it was kind of a lesser-of-two-evils kind of shepherding. Robert DeNiro directed this film, and he has been in his share of films that take a very pessemistic view of the human condition. Perhaps this film, being released at Christmas can remind us of how far we have come from the principles that our country was founded on. Pilgrims thought Jesus was a good shepherd. Durring World War II and then the Cold War, who were our shepherds? Who are our shepherds now?

Of course I'm making some connections that were never explored in the film. Obviously I think that no other shepherd can compare to Jesus, and therefore he should be our example. I really don't know if DeNiro had a deeper purpose in mind when he made this film. At it's most basic, it is a film about corruption, how none of us are immune, and how it's amazing that our country has survived with the fact that everyone in positions of power is corruptable. From my point of view it is a blessing from God that our county has survived. God has allowed the lesser-of-two-evils to be in power at certain times. Sometimes of course the worse-of-two-evils may be in power, and maybe even there have been some good shepherds.

The reason it's hard for me to write about I guess is that I still haven't completely formulated my opinion of the film. I am somewhat dissapointed that DeNiro didn't outright come to the conclusion that I thought he should, at the same time I'm glad he didn't, so that I can take time to think, write and talk about it. It was a good film.

Rocky Balboa

I don't really like boxing movies. The first Rocky movie is my favorite and least favorite boxing movie, both happening at the same time. The Rocky series represents the first time I saw a movie in the theater and realized that I has just seen a bad movie hoping to cash in on a brand name (whichever Rocky movie had the big Russian). I can't stand seeing people getting thier eyelids cut open so that they can go back in the ring, actually I can't stand that image period. What I do love about Rocky is Rocky, and the music, and Philadelphia. In this the newest and final film in the series, I got everything I like, without having to endure the eyelid slicing. If you don't already know the basic premise of the film, wht would I ruin it for you, and if you do why would I be repetetive? What I will say is that I enjoyed the whole film because it was about Rocky, as a man, as a fathes, a husband, a champion, growing old, but mostly dealing with life as a man. The strength of the first Rocky film was that you beleived this character was real and wanted him to succeed. Stallone recreates that chemistry in this film, and I think it is one of the best movies I've seen this year.

Apocalypto

I was going to begin this review by saying that Mel Gibson made his movie a few years ago, when he made "Braveheart". I was going to go on by saying that he poured his heart into that project, and that emotion made the movie more powerful. I decided that it would be best not to begin that way, because it might lead you to believe that "Apocalypto" is a lesser movie, without fairly explaining myself. So, I'm going to break down what I thought about "Apocalypto" and just leave "Braveheart" out of the discussion.

"Apocalypto" is great at what it tries to be. It is a simple story of a man, who loves his family, is faced with some rough situations, but is determined to triumph against all odds. What I really liked was how Mel Gibson places us in the jungle, with the tribesmen, and the story unfolds smoothly, naturally, right in front of us. We are in the jungle from the first moment, no subtitles explaining what the deal is. There are tribesmen, men who act like men, who have families, annoying relatives, barking dogs. The story doesn't seem forced or scripted, we feel as though we have joined these people in the middle of their lives, and the turning point that comes is unexpected to them and we understand that. Without giving away too much of the story, I will say that the main character finds himself alone, seperated from his family, outnumbered by enemies bent on killing him. This is where Mel Gibson as the director takes a little liberty, and intervenes on his hero's behalf. It sort of rminded me of "Signs", where the details by themselves may seem random, as a whole it is undeniably Divine intervention. Gibson uses some pretty heavy symbolism, which I must admit that I'm not completely sure on all the meaning. Good symbolism is interesting even if you don't get it though, and I like what he did here. There is also an amazingly well choreographed chase scene, which I won't talk about too much except to say that I love when you can see what is happening, know what is going to happen next, and everything is shot so well and put together so beautifully, that you actually feel satisfaction when the scene is over. The scene I just refered to does include what I'd like to talk about next, and something I know my mom has a concern for Mel Gibson over; violence. Gibson's previously mentioned film, this film, and "The Passion of the Christ" all have graphic, realistic violence. Before Gibson was a director, of course he made the Mad Max movies and the Letahl weapon movies, which all had some pretty intense "action" violence. Is Gibson attracted to violence? I can see my mom's concern. I think there's somewhere in the Bible that warns us against such behavior and people. But what about "The Passion", doesn't that in and of itself make up for a multitude of sins? I believe, thus far in his latter career, Gibson is taking on meaningful projects that do show a maturity that most likely reflects a change of heart. As far as I know, Mel has never killed anybody, or even given anyone a good beatdown. Perhaps he is not violent, and the use of violence in his most recent films is actually beneficial. Braveheart recognizes the ultimate sacrifice for one's beliefs. "The Passion" attempted to give an account of what Jesus really went through as a sacrifice for us. And now, Gibson has used violence to comment on the downfall of a civilization, and that to live in peace is good. I still think that mom's concern is valid. Perhaps Mel should direct the next Pixar movie, and let whoever directed "Happy Feet" make the next Roman war epic or whatever.

The Fountain and The Pick of Destiny

You may have noticed that I've been allowing some movies to share space in my reviews. Sometimes movies deserve a stand alone review, but more often than not, they can share.

I went to see "The Fountain" with my friend Rob. He gave it the review rating of 3 yawns, which was better than Soderbergh's "Solaris" which recieved his 4 yawn rating. We pretty much agreed that there were some amazing visuals, and the story was interesting, but once you've seen 20 seconds of a cool visual, you don't really need 25 more minutes of the same exact thing. Also, once you get a point the film is making, like that the main character is obsessed with finding a cure, we don't really need 10 more scenes to drive that point home. I had talked recently about Darren Aronofsky (the director of "The Fountain") being a anti-Hollywood director. He was rumored to be in line to direct a gritty Batman movie, but got bumped because he wasn't going to sell enough lunch boxes and action figures. Well, I'm not going to go back on my enthusiasm about his Batman project, but he should avoid stories about people who live forever, because it kind of felt like we were along for the ride. Maybe that's what he was going for, just like Ridley Scott was trying to make us all feel the fustration in "Black Hawk Down". There just are certain things you don't want to feel in a movie theater, and for me bored and fustrated are at the top of the list.

"The Pick of Destiny" starts out with Jack Black as a kid in a Chistian home playing a metal song for his family. As Edwardo would say, it was smurfing funny. This film falls into the category of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". Personally I though Jack Black was best in the film "High Fidelity", he was a side character who was well written and full of enthusiasm. Since then his roles have been funny (mostly) but usually shallow and missing great oppurtunities. I would say that this movie comes closest to breaking that trend, but not quite. Black is on a quest to write and perform his "masterpiece" yet the film never delivers. Perhaps that is part of the joke. Black and his partner are stoned so much that the believe they have made their masterpiece, but unfortunately can not remember how it went. Wouldn't it be better for the audience if they actually performed their masterpiece, yet because they were stoned didn't realize it themselves. Tenacious D. is a cool concept and a funny band, but they are no Led Zeppelin, which with Jack Black as the lead singer would be really cool and funny and great.

Harsh Times and Deja Vu and Deja Vu

Have I ever mentioned that I enjoy going to movies. Movies can be an escape and movies can make you think. Sometimes both happen at the same time. "Harsh Times" hasn't gottten much advertising, but I saw a poster for it and thought it might be alright. It is directed by David Ayer, the guy who wrote "Training Day", and it stars Christian Bale. Bale plays a former Army Ranger, living in Los Angeles, who is mixed up in gangs and drugs, and has just been accepted to work for Homeland Security. That in and of itself is a pretty interesting setup, but what makes the movie is Bales perfomance. Just like "Training Day", the antihero is what the film is about, not the inticate plot. Of course, as with "Training Day" there isn't much hope for a "happy" ending. Maybe for his next film Ayer should throw us all off by developing his character from antihero to hero, kind of like Bogart in "Key Largo". So here's my final analysis: "Key Largo", "Training Day" then "Harsh Times". The order in which I rate these films and the order in which they should be viewed.

Nate and I have been looking forward to "Deja Vu" for quite some time now. Aside from the mere fact that Denzel Washington stars and Tony Scott directs, this movie had one of the best trailers in a long, long time. Let's start with that I really enjoyed watching this film. Let's continue by addressing the films strengths next. Amazing direction and cinematography. Scott has complete control over every moment of film that we see. There is so much information in this movie, yet we see and hear every little detail so clearly. Also, the way the story unfolds, and the way concepts are explained and explored is interesting and keeps your attention. Denzel, Val Kilmer and the supporting characters don't just follow scripted paths, they discuss motivations, express emotion and deal with the complications of their circumstance. Now are you ready for my complaint? For some this may be a petty nitpick, but for me it's pretty big. There has only ever been one "time travel" movie that has been true to my Calvanist beliefs, and that was "12 Monkeys" Of course I enjoyed, and still do the "Back to the Future" trilogy, but there are so may holes in the logic of those films that it's best not even to think about. That is true as well with "Deju Vu". If you could go back in time to affect the past in order to change the future, logically you have begun a cicle that must be maintained. "Deja Vu" ignores that one point, which in a film so concerned with details and tying up loose ends, is unforgivable. "12 Monkeys" doesn't specifically say that God is in control, but it at least recognizes that we are not. "Deja Vu" discusses God's omnipotence, yet seems to conclude that we are masters of our own fate, now that's a scary thought.

Nate and I have been looking forward to "Deja Vu" for quite some time now. Aside from the mere fact that Denzel Washington stars and Tony Scott directs, this movie had one of the best trailers in a long, long time. Let's start with that I really enjoyed watching this film. Let's continue by addressing the films strengths next. Amazing direction and cinematography. Scott has complete control over every moment of film that we see. There is so much information in this movie, yet we see and hear every little detail so clearly. Also, the way the story unfolds, and the way concepts are explained and explored is interesting and keeps your attention. Denzel, Val Kilmer and the supporting characters don't just follow scripted paths, they discuss motivations, express emotion and deal with the complications of their circumstance. Now are you ready for my complaint? For some this may be a petty nitpick, but for me it's pretty big. There has only ever been one "time travel" movie that has been true to my Calvanist beliefs, and that was "12 Monkeys" Of course I enjoyed, and still do the "Back to the Future" trilogy, but there are so may holes in the logic of those films that it's best not even to think about. That is true as well with "Deju Vu". If you could go back in time to affect the past in order to change the future, logically you have begun a cicle that must be maintained. "Deja Vu" ignores that one point, which in a film so concerned with details and tying up loose ends, is unforgivable. "12 Monkeys" doesn't specifically say that God is in control, but it at least recognizes that we are not. "Deja Vu" discusses God's omnipotence, yet seems to conclude that we are masters of our own fate, now that's a scary thought.