21 posts tagged “movies”

Well I've seen the next three movies on my wish-list for the season. Here are some thoughts. **SPOILER WARNING** I've waited a while on this so I'd be less likely to ruin these movies for anybody, but if you have yet to see them, don't read this yet!!!

The Happening - Grade: C-

I had high hopes for M. Night Shyamalan's newest venture. The trailers made promises of a terrifying new thriller--his first R-rated feature, no less (other than a blood-spurting bullet wound, I never figured out why). What I got was an anti-climactic, awkward chase without a real chaser. Again thanks to the movie's hype (and Shyamalan's reputation) I was expecting something of a mystery--but the mystery of The Happening is revealed well ahead of time with a simple suggestion that is never really expounded upon.

There are no startling revelations in this movie--it doesn't even seem to try for one. There's no fear of the unknown, either, because you are pretty much told what's happening. We're expected, I guess, to be terrified by the sight of entranced people going deadpan and casually killing themselves. It's unnerving at first, sure, but later in the film some of the instances of this seem to take on a crude humor. It's just not scary.

There is probably only one scene in the film that is genuinely shocking and frightening, when two boys are brutally shot by paranoid rednecks barracaded in their home. Other than that, this was a fairly uncompelling ride.

The Incredible Hulk - Grade: B

Marvel's revisting of this classic superhero had loads more quality to it than the big-budget flop they offered a few years back; that much was obvious from the previews. The acting, style and even the effects of this Hulk surpass its predecessor quite a bit.

I kept trying to figure out, though, whether this was supposed to be a sequel to the other--or if it was a complete reimagining ala Batman Begins. The fact that it starts with Bruce Banner somehwere in Latin America (where he ended up in the last movie's epilogue), among other things, lead me to believe that it probably was.

Despite being better, though, this Hulk just didn't feel like its own movie. The mention of the names "Tony Stark" and "Nick Fury" during the opening credits--as well as a cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as Stark (aka Iron Man), coupled with a plot that's pretty shallow, made this feel more like an in-betweener. It's like Marvel has created a miniseries for us and this is just one of the episodes.

Still, there's pretty good action and, like I said, they finally did the green guy some justice.

 The Dark Knight - Grade: A+

Okay, is everybody talking about this movie, or what? I loved Batman Begins. I was so happy somebody was bold enough to revitalize the abused and camped-out Caped Crusader franchise. When news started to leak about this one, I was excited--but cautiously so. I didn't know what to think about Heath Ledger as the Joker.

I really liked 1989's Batman (it was Batman Forever and Batman & Robin that turned the franchise into a candy-coated joke). A big part of that was Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the iconic arch nemesis. Giddy and psychotic with a surprising poetic streak, he always struck me as one of Hollywood's most interesting villains.

Ledger, though, surpassed the hype of his role (which was considerable), and he surpassed Nicholson. True to the nature of this refurbished series, Ledger took the Joker and made him a darker, grittier and more engaging incarnation of something we thought we were familiar with. If Nicholson's joker was unnerving, Ledger's is truly terrifying--yet still coaxes a number of laughs from the audience without losing their respect. From the moment of his gasp-elliciting pencil trick, the Joker has you in a vice grip.

The cool thing is, though, that while Ledger deserves to steal the show in TDK--and in some ways does--the rest of the film keeps up with him. Bale's Batman is still awesome, and kept my rapt attention even when the Joker wasn't around. The supporting cast puts out another stellar performance, completing the film's all-around compelling quality.

The trade off of Maggie Gyllenhaal for Katie Holmes is only peripherally distracting--still would have preferred they not do that. Does Cruise have her locked up or something? Maybe she could use a real Batman.

There are a lot of levels and parallels to the elements in The Dark Knigh, from the faux Batmans in their hockey pads (unprepared and unqualified do-gooders) to the Joker's contradictory scar stories (the lack of identity leading to a purer evil) this movie didn't just blow me out of the water--it made me think.

Love it, love it, love it.

Just got back from seeing The Dark Knight as part of the traditional Friday evening off from the conference. As a side note, TDK absolutely rocks. Not relying on the momentum of its predecessor (which it easily could), it's truly a great piece of movie-making. It's scarier than The Happening. It's more riveting than Iron Man. It's the best movie so far this year. Once it's been out a while and everyone's had a chance to see it, I think I will blog about some more of its deeper elements (of which there are plenty).

But wasn't this about the Conference? Oh yeah.

On Wednesday, Anne Graham Lotz shared an awesome message about the Holy Spirit. That was when something just clicked for me. The whole issue of the Holy Spirit has been a tough one for me for the past few years. Straying from my more conservative Baptist roots and exploring the Charistmatic realm made me question a lot of things, and I came away from Anne's presentation finally feeling personal with God again.

Looking back, the message was really simple. The Holy Spirit is God; the Holy Spirit is Holy; the Holy Spirit is our power source; He's a He, not an It; He's the essence of Jesus in our lives; He loves us like Jesus does. I also liked her assertion that what we need is not more of the Holy Spirit--He doesn't come in pieces, after all. Rather, what we ought to consider is whether we have given the Holy Spirit all of ourselves.

I'm still not sure exactly where it made the connection for me. Somewhere in there, I guess I just felt God reminding me that He's there and He likes talking with me. What a simple and immense thing to receive.

Last night, Michelle McKinney Hammond spoke to the general session. She was hilarious, not to mention pretty deep. Her message culminated in a call to forgiveness, of laying down some person or event at the foot of the cross and trading that burden for Christ's freedom.

Appropriately, we celebrated afterwards by singing "Trading My Sorrows," which I've always thought would be the perfect song for an Exodus Conference, but which we haven't to my recollection ever sung in the past eight years. Anyways, the rejoicing in the auditorium was exuberant.

I didn't feel God urging me to participate in the forgiveness exercise myself; no memory came to mind, no struggle, no "chains" fell off. But what I did see was that He was doing His healing, freeing work all around me. It wasn't my turn for revelation or healing, but I could still see the evidence of His healing power all around me, so I still had much to celebrate. And that we did.

It also occurred to me how misunderstood people are about this journey, willfully or otherwise. Depressed, repressed people don't sing like that. People leading fruitless, loveless lives aren't likely to have it in them to shout, dance and cheer their gratitude. It was something I wish so many more friends could have been a part of.

 

 

Finally, Batman Begins has been released on Blu-Ray. I've been waiting for this for a while. In my opinion, BB is the best superhero movie ever. I can't wait to see Dark Knight, and I can't wait to watch this one in hi-def!

Or, Summer Movie ABC's, owing to their respective ratings.

For a while now, this summer has promised to be a big one at the Box Office, with a bucketful of highly anticipated titles scheduled for release throughout the hotter months. There are six major films I've been looking forward to, and now I've seen three of them. Here at the halfway point, I'm sharing my thoughts on how Hollywood's done so far.

Iron Man Grade: A

It was only a matter of time until they resurrected this hero from the annals of Marvel mythology to make another heap of cash. I'm glad to say this is one of the instances in which they've done the long-standing character justice with a truly good film.

Iron Man has everything you want from a summer blockbuster: larger-than-life action, likable characters, impressive and innovative special effects, and even some decent helpings of suspense. In my opinion, this movie has no overt weaknesses. The acting is solid overall, and the typical comic-flick propensity for unbelievability is deftly handled.

Sure, it might not be a stirring character drama or a timeless epic, but not every great film needs to be. Iron Man isn't just watchable; it's ownable. (even if that's not a word, you know what I mean).

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian Grade: B

This will truly be a long-lived franchise if they really go for all seven films at their current rate of one every three years.

In any case, the experience of Caspian is, for Lewis-lovers, much like it was in the first film. Vast creative license was taken to transform the succinct children's tale into an epic 2-hour-plus adventure. I have to say though, that the plot and character elements added to this film came off as much more appropriate to the story than did the embellishments of Wardrobe.

Caspian includes long sequences which were never part of the tale in the book, and delves into some deeper character issues not even hinted at by Lewis--primarily with the older Pevensie children. The overall effect is that the impression of the story is much darker than what you get reading the novel. Which, to me, seems to fit. The whole premise of Narnia being subdued by an invading force headed by a murderous tyrant certainly warrants it.

What I didn't like were a few dramatic exchanges between characters that seemed to come out of nowhere and aren't followed up well. The film does, however, expand effectively on other elements of the original text, such as the summoning of the White Witch.

If you're a die-hard fan of the books, Caspian doesn't do them justice (it probably never could), but as a film it's well-made and enjoyable.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Grade: C

From the start I was skeptical about this movie. Forget that Harrison Ford is in his 60's. Forget that twenty years have passed, taking the characters out of their familiar era and settings. It just didn't seem to make sense. Mostly because The Last Crusade--a nearly flawless adventure film--rounded out the trilogy so darn well. It was the pinnacle of what we'd come to expect from Indy, and left you with a feeling of completeness about the franchise.

So, from the onset Crystal Skull had the weakness of appearing gratuitous. And that it was.

This is not your typical Indy adventure. As the film progresses, over-the-top plot elements and territory unfamiliar to Indiana Jones history make the story seem--well--alien. Other plot elements, such as a conflict of suspicion between Indy and the FBI, are introduced and never developed.

Karen Allen reprises her role as Indy's rascally one-time love interest. Her part is obviously for the sake of nostalgia, and the effect is somewhat successful, though the journey of rekindling their relationship seems complete almost as soon as it begins.

Several of the action gimmicks elicited groans of incredulity from the audience, including Shia LeBeouf swinging monkey-like from jungle vines, and an impossible tree-assisted cliff dive in an amphibious tank.

Overall it's not a terrible movie, it's just okay. The problem therein is that, if they were going to resurrect something as iconic as Indiana Jones, they really needed to hit it out of the park. They didn't.

--

Okay, I said that there were six movies I was especially looking forward to this summer. The remaning three are The Incredible Hulk (medium expectations), M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening (high expectations), and The Dark Knight (REALLY high expectations!). On with summer!

A week ago tonight I attended a screening of "For the Bible Tells Me So" at Stetson University. I was also part of a discussion panel after the film which included Daniel Karslake (the maker of the documentary), a few professors from the school's counseling and religion departments, a PFLAG mom, and Dr. Julie Hamilton.

I haven't blogged about it for a week partly because I've been busy, but partly because I've had a lot of mixed feelings and thoughts to hash out. It's just bound to do that for someone in my position, I guess.

It's very stirring and well-made. As I said that night, I appreciated that the majority of the film is based on the power of people's personal stories. In the political and religious arguments, sometimes we lose the fact that at the end of the day these issues are about people, their lives and relationships. While the film had a definitive agenda (nothing wrong with that), I felt that it held mostly to that facet of the topic, and to a lesser extent the political and religious.

It did, however, present a very one-sided and--I believe--mistaken view of Scripture. It's a lot of the same pro-gay Biblical arguments that anyone who has studied this debate at all is used to, presented without rebuttal. The "other side" is mostly portrayed through decades-old clips of Jimmy Swagart and other unrecognized preachers spouting rather violent rhetoric, as well as man-on-the-street interviews with the Phelps cult. Not a really honest look at the debate, in my opinion.

Mr. Karslake says that's now how he wanted it to be; he invited high-profile conservatives to present an opposing view-point, all of whom backed out upon learning more about the film.

Which is a shame, because it might have been good for them. From the discussion we had that night, I think Mr. Karslake would have given as fair a shot to those guys as anybody who really disagreed with them. But, I can also understand why they wouldn't do it. There are just too many people out there with no integrity, pursuing their own far-bent projects, to make you comfortable sitting down with someone from the opposing viewpoint and giving them dialog they can clip and splice to their liking. Mr. Karslake acknowledged that in my conversation with him afterward, so I appreciated that he didn't heap all the blame onto the conservatives who declined to be filmed.

As for the arguments themselves, the best Christian rebuttal to them has already been put to print in Joe Dallas' excellent book, The Gay Gospel? If you're really wanting to honestly challenge your own thinking and look at both sides, check that one out.

Karslake insisted very passionately that his desire was to create dialog, be fair and not denigrate anyone. The one part of the film that really put that into question for me was the cartoon segment about halfway into it.

It portrays an ignorant little fellow (ironically named "Christian") being schooled in the ways of gay by a voice everyone who's seen a movie preview will recognize. The segment first offers some questionable statements on the evidence of biological causation of same-sex attraction--which is more Dr. Hamilton's field and she answered to that nicely last week.

But then a mockery is made of ex-gay ministries as a little brick factory with people coming in one side and out the other on a conveyor belt. On the "out" side of the factory, one of the characters smirks and whispers, "We're still gay," which garnered its intended roar of laughter from the student audience.

This insulting depiction, along with the departure from the film's overall personal tone to one that very blatantly said "you're stupid if you don't believe this," made it an offensive gesture to me as well as a detraction from what is truly good about the film.

And there is true good in it. I believe it is at its heart a call for understanding and compassion. I can disagree with many of its suppositions without writing off its genuine motive. The stories of the familes--sad but touching and revealing--are more than worth watching. It did not challenge my core beliefs about what is right and intended for sexuality, but I did feel challenged (and rightly so) to even greater efforts at understanding, gentleness and clarity.

I'm back with another late-coming movie review--two reviews, actually! Lucky you!

Let me start with the better one, which is also The Brave One. I should have posted this over a week ago (which is when I saw it), but I've been rather unmotivated. Chalk it up to a couple new video games I indulged myself to purchase (after trading in old DVD's--this 'ex-gay-for-pay' business isn't as glamorous as they make it sound).

I'll begin by saying Jodie Foster is one of my favorite actresses. She's one of those that will make me go see a movie just because she's in it. Her performances are always genuine, committed and enjoyable--if sometimes a little similar. It all boils down to: I heart Jodie.

The Brave One is no exception. This is a very tense and engaging film, and though it is very violent it doesn't rush to wallow in the blood and bang of gunfire, but faithfully keeps that vein of film-making in places where the story calls for it. And it's shocking enough without any excess. In the midst of the bursts of violence and plot-shockers, Foster keeps us from losing the character. She retains our interest through the film's lulls, and basically just keeps it real.

I also enjoyed that this movie was not as predictable as I thought it would be. Knowing the basic premise before going in, I sort of feared that I already had it figured out and would spend the last third of the movie waiting for the ending I could already see in my mind (I hate when that happens). But I was pleasantly surprised to be thrown off the story's scent enough to find myself guessing how it would really end.

This movie actually surpassed several of my I-know-Hollywood-too-well fears: I was afraid it'd be gratuitous and it wasn't; I was afraid it would get preachy and it didn't.

I do recommend The Brave One for most of my friends. My one BOO! is for some brief but very in-your-face nudity during the beginning. A quick glance down will take care of it, but I'd rather not have to. From what I did see, I did perceive what the scene meant to convey, but you can find subtler means of expressing the same thing, thank you.

And obviously, if you're put-off by graphic violence, don't go for it. A-

Next, a video that's available for rent: TMNT (or, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for those of you who didn't watch Saturday morning cartoons in the late 80's and early 90's.

I was crazy about the turtles as a kid, and if I was still ten I'm sure I would have liked this movie. But I'm not, and I didn't.

Being a computer-animated full-length feature with an impressive trailer, I had hoped for a more suped-up and hopefully semi-adult-friendly installment from the guys in green, but alas, it was just like watching the old cartoon with better graphics. The movie lagged even in that department, really; the animation was low-quality by today's movie standards.

Overall, TMNT is juvenile and boring. You're probably thinking, "Well, DUH!" but for the reasons I mentioned above, I hoped for more. The original 1990 film is actually much better. D

This past week, Kevin and I rented The Abandoned, which is apparently one of "8 Movies to Die For." Really, I don't see why. With only a few genuinely creepy scenes, whatever fear this movie induced was far overshadowed by the absolute bordedom that was its defining effect. Maybe the makers of this one were going for a different tactic, hoping to drive viewers to insanity with drawn out, unscary scenes featuring only one actor and no action.

The few times it seemed like The Abandoned was actually trying to be a horror movie, it used the same gimmicks that have seemed to be the staple for all ghost flicks ever since the genuinely scary The Ring was such a success: apparitions that look like wet, corpsy people slowly jittering their way across the floor toward a suddenly wobbly-legged protagonist. Yawn.

What's more worthy of a post, I think, is the disturbing trend many scary movies are beginning to conform to. In the past several years, it seems prolonged scenes of torture are the major selling point for more and more of the big-budget frightening flicks. Several titles come immediately to mind--all of them having spawned at least one sequel.  I wandered into a couple of these movies before the trend caught on, hoping for a genuinely suspenseful ride, only to find myself observing one scene of abject suffering after another.

Maybe some people find the theme of torture scary in the enjoying way kind of similar to how I appreciate movies like What Lies Beneath and The Village. I don't; I just find it disturbing. Mostly this is because I know that many people throughout history have suffered such atrocities to satisfy the perverted needs of others. This probably hasn't happened to the bulk of humanity, but really any number would be too many, wouldn't it? History is soiled with the deeds of men who, in their twistedness, devised cruel ways to inflict suffering on others.

What also bugs me is the knowledge that cultures before ours have enjoyed this kind of treatment of people as a form of entertainment--only it wasn't pretend. I can't help wondering, are we as a culture moving in that direction?

Let me say that I don't think violence in movies is always bad. In just about every adventure, from ancient mythologies to Star Wars, there's been violence and death. It's a part of life, you could say. Struggle and wrongdoing and the neverending battle to make things right. There's no telling that story without violence.

But when we sit ourselves down before the silver screen (or its little brother at home) and gorge our eyes and ears on a person's torment, what kind of thirst are we satisfying--and nurturing into a growing fascination? I know from my own forays into the underworld of fleshly desires that many people--of all walks--find themselves drawn to witness the suffering of others, and find ways to justify feeding that desire. That's part of what scared me back into God's protective guidelines.

When Americans think about the Dark Ages, it can seem like a different world. I suppose it's somewhat reassuring that people--or at least the media--made a show of offense at the perceived mistreatment of prisoners of war. Yet we simultaneously shelled out millions upon millions to the makers of Hostel and the Saw movies. Are we so arrogant as to think our natures are inherently above those of societies gone by? All we have to do is find some segment of the populace we can convince ourselves to dehumanize, and we may find ourselves with pillories in the town square again. I

Slow blogging this week. (that's slow as in no). Life is getting busier all the time, but here are some tidbits.

Rented Pan's Labyrinth the other night--very pleasantly surprised. The impression I got from what little media coverage it got led me to believe it was sort of a kid's fairytale kind of film (mostly images of the girl wandering through a forest surrounded by faeries); however this is not the case--my first clue was the R rating.

Pan contains two parallel plot lines, one of fantasy and one more grounded in reality. The little heroine goes back and forth between these two very contrasting but also dangerous worlds. She must complete tasks delivered to her by an ancient Faun to prove in order to prove she is a princess; meanwhile, in a post-Civil War Spain, she is trapped in the house of a brutal fascist who has recently married her mother.

Taught suspense and a sense of wonder made this movie very enjoyable to me. I think it quite an accomplishment for a film to be so fantastical, gritty and heartfelt at the same time. The R rating is for several instances of graphic violence, and a few strong curses. It's a foreign film with subtitles, but this always seems to make movies more charming to me, at least in terms of dialog. For some reason, writers can get away with something easier if I have to read it than if an actor says it. I don't know if anyone else feels that way.

Highly recommended!

In other news, I'm a little swamped between work, drama ministry and personal projects. I've got several trips coming up soon for Exodus, an event to organize, and now I'm in a short drama at church that's turning out to be a lot more work than expected. I'm afraid it may be my last endeavor in that area for a little while.

In the "personal projects" department, I've officially decided that the novel I've written is finished. I simply must refuse to keep working on it, refining it, tweaking it. I've heard it said that a work of art is never completed, only abandoned. That can be a comforting thing to hear when you just never feel like you're done with something.

Now comes the fun part--pursuing publishing. *nervous laugh*

Over the weekend I caught a couple new movies. Review time!

Transformers is one I was really looking forward to. I realize it's just the latest effort of Hollywood to make a buck (or 100 million) off the childhood years of my generation--but still. Transformers were the one toy I never had as a kid, but I always wanted. I remember a vivid dream I had about them, where I owned all of them and was holding one in my hand, and I literally woke up to see my empty hand in front of my face. I was so sad. But, I digress.

Transformers definitely delivered in the departments everybody knew would be its strong point: special effects and action. It's visually eye-popping throughout, and my only complaint about the action is that sometimes it was a little too crowded and complex to understand what exactly was happening.

I also really enjoyed the humor aspect of Transformers, though both my roommate and I agreed that the gags got dragged out at times. This movie was a lot goofier than I expected it to be, but I can't say I was totally surprised. After all, it is a movie based on a line of toys. Altogether, though, I felt like the humor, action and suspense were reasonably balanced and transitioned well.

The only other downfalls I perceived were a couple gags that seemed (to me) to push the envelope on racial stereotypes, plus a quick (but obvious) jab at the President. But overall, an enjoyable movie.

The next day, we headed over to the cheap theater to catch Shooter starring Mark Whalberg. SPOILER WARNING! This movie came off as a lower-quality Bourne film. It had a lot of the same elements--government conspiracy, spy intrigue, plot twists, suspense and action--yet all of them pulled off sloppily and predictably. The only manner in which Shooter surpasses the Bourne movies is in explicit, graphic violence.

The movie also transitions horribly. One moment its trying to be very subtle, with plot elements delivered to the audience via hushed dialog--and then we're zapped forward to a new chapter so fast that heads were spinning. For instance, Whalberg's character (accused of attempting a presidential assassination, wounded and on the run) barges in on his former partner's widow, a terrified young thing who dropped out of nursing school when her husband died. She reluctantly agrees to bandage up this bullet-holed sniper she hardly knows, then all of a sudden we find her dressed up in full disguise, commissioning an FBI agent to help the "Shooter" in his quest for justice, and I was never sure how we got from one point to the other.

Besides all this, the movie had liberal propagandist undertones throughout. Several times we are presented with the "cold reality" that America's wars are all about oil, and "freedom" is a thin cover for atrocities. I honestly didn't expect any different, knowing Danny Glover was on board. The political views of the movie climax, however, in a ridiculous portrayal of evil conservatives.

In the last scene, we see Glover and a fat, little old white man (the evil and obviously Republican bad guys) laughing it up over cigars and brandy, indignantly shouting, "Truth! Justice! The truth is what I say it is! Mwahahahahaha!!!" It's so ludicrously overplayed and yet disturbing that this is how some on the far-left fringe of this country envision conservatives behind closed doors.

The scene ends with an orgy of violence, as Whalberg comes in and works some "cowboy justice." Kind of an ironic ending for a liberal movie, yet again disturbing if this really is what some on that far-left fringe (enough people to make a movie, at least) are envisioning.

Blockbuster has announced that next month it will expand its offering to include high-def movies at over 1,400 stores--in Blu-Ray format only. This is expected to be a heavy-hitting blow to the rival HD-DVD format, which already lost ground when Disney went Blu.

Good news for me, since I have already put my chips down on that side of the battlefield by purchasing a PS3. Perhaps now the selection of movies for Blu-Ray will expand, and some of the movies I've coveted that have been exclusively HD so far will come over--namely freaking BATMAN BEGINS!!!!