Charlie Wilson's War

In 1980 the Soviet Union was advancing its borders and influence, and one place this was happening was Afghanistan. The Afghans were trying to fight back, but they were getting mowed down (a rifle versus an attack helicopter). Some people were noticing, but not many. One such person was Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts). Herring was a wealthy Texan who had a great deal of influence upon politics. So she started talking to her people, namely Representative Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks). Wilson is an interesting character. He likes women a lot, he likes to booze, and he likes.... well those are his big two interests in life. Be forewarned. Yet he is a congressman who does not have a lot on his plate. So he has time for many issues that others don't. One such issue is funding for covert operations. He starts to increase the funding for covert ops in Afghanistan, and teams up with Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman). This small team takes on the giant, the USSR.

Although this all happened 20-25 years ago, this is such a relevant film to today. Basically, we saw an enemy (communism) and did whatever we could to stop that enemy. We helped the little guy out. But in the end, we left a small problem that was a sleeping giant. We help people, other nations, fight wars, etc. but we always leave. We are not concerned about reconstruction, about building up what is to replace it. The government eventually increases the budget for covert ops in Afghanistan to $1 Billion but won't give $1 Million to build schools after the war has been won. Basically, we had a chance to help out in a big way but screwed it all up, which led to much of the "war on terror" now. Also, the idea of winning a war and opting out of reconstruction sounds a lot like evangelism. One problem we Christians have sometimes is that we convert people, and then think that's it, that they will find their way, that we don't need to disciple. All we need is for them to "say the magic prayer."

One scene stuck out to me above all the others. A southern white man goes to the refugee camp in Pakistan to see the devestation. He gets on a loud speaker and starts telling everyone that the US government is going to help this war. Then he gets into the good versus evil rhetoric, which is where this all gets dangerous. All the people are shouting "Allahu Akbar (God is Great)!" And he yells "God is Great!" with them. It's disturbing not only because Allah and YHWH are two different Gods, but also because they are claiming God is choosing sides. There is a part in Joshua in which Joshua asks an angel whose side he is on (thinking the angel has to be on his side, they are God's chosen people right?) and he says "neither" [Check out the article on Rob Bell in the new Relevant Magazine, highly recommended]. Wait, God cares about the "bad guys" too? God loves commies? God loves fundamentalist Muslims? We need to be very careful that we don't use God for our own purposes, or let others do it on our behalf. It is a very scary thing. Gust even says something to the effect of: "soon God will be on both sides, then what?"

The visit to the refugee camp was also a wake-up call for Wilson. He was doing some important things in his life, but mostly he was just about fast living hedonism. But then he saw the suffering of others and felt a call to action. He started to value his time and energy more; he suddenly had purpose. We have to have purpose.

Charlie Wilson's War was not only politically engaging (whatelse do you expect from a screenplay by The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin?), but it was hilarious. Hoffman was awesome, just a flat-out joy to watch. I was reminded why he is my favorite actor. I was originally suprised to see this film in the Comedy category of the Golden Globes, but now I see why. Yet the film is still honest and thought-provoking. It's a difficult task to be an entertaining/funny/interesting/intellectual/enlightening film, but Mike Nichol's (The Graduate) Charlie Wilson's War succeeds.

Once

Once is one of those films that is benefiting greatly from word of mouth. It is a simple Irish folk musical. Yeah, it's a musical, and yeah I despise musicals. But this is more of a story that involves musicians, and those musicians write good music.

Glen Hansard plays Guy, a street musician who is mourning the loss of a romance. He is trying to do everything he can to get his music out there and make a living doing what he loves. One day he meets Girl, played by Marketa Irglovna, and they start a friendship. She is a classically trained Czech pianist and vocalist, so they start writing and playing music together. What makes the film a "good musical" is that these two are actual musicians, and they wrote the tunes that are featured in the film. The music has a Damien Rice vibe to it, so know that going in. The film follows the creative journey of Guy, his quest to make music and move to London, and his pursuit of Girl.

The relationship between the two is interesting and very dangerous. Guy "falls in love" with Girl, but Girl is married, we find out later. She just doesn't take into account what signs she is sending out. If you are married, you just can't have close relationships with the opposite sex. It's too complicated and dangerous. But these two just move along and pretend like everything is good and fine, much like Lost in Translation. Interesting fodder for thought and conversation.

Once is an honest work of starving artists. It is a "low-budget" film that succeeds on many levels, because of its straightforwardness and transparency. The music is great, the idea is creative and unique, and the people are interesting to watch. This film has garnered a great deal of praise from critics throughout the year, and is appearing all over top ten lists that come up this time of year. The film is about heartache, about passion, about creativity and the pursuit of self-expression.

I Am Legend

I was mildly interested in this film going in, but I Am Legend really impressed me on many levels. Will Smith plays Robert Neville, the only man left after a biological disaster of epic proportions hits the planet. It all started with man's desire to cure cancer (hey, we are all in favor of that, aren't we?). But that seemingly incredible miracle actually spawns a mega-virus that gives people uber-rabies. Let's just say they are scary and like to eat people. From what I have heard, the film is very different than the book, so know that going in. Now, Neville spends his days hunting for food, renting movies, trying to find a cure for this disease, and hanging out with his dog Sam. At night, he has to get back to his secret and heavily fortified hideout. Why? Because the vampire-like crazy people get severely harmed by UV rays.

Neville is driven by a desire to save the world/fix the problem/find a cure for this disease. He has an extensive lab in his basement where he does experiments. He believes that he can do this, that he can stop this. This is a noble and manly desire, but as most of us men realize, we cannot fix everything or cure everything alone. He has been disconnected with people for three years now, so he is beginning to go crazy. He places mannequins around a Blockbuster store to have people to talk to and interact with. He sees hallucinations. And why is that? Because we were created to be social beings, to live in community, not alone.

Neville's daughter is named Marley, after Bob Marley. This becomes a very important thematic element in the film. We hear a story about Marley. Once upon a time Bob Marley was shot by a man who did not like him working for peace. Just a few days later he performed a concert and was asked why he got back out there so quickly. He said that the bad guys don't take a day off, why should he? He said we must bring light to the darkness. This is Neville's motivation, to bring light to the darkness.

Much like Shyamalan's Signs, I Am Legend has very strong spiritual overtones. There is one scene in which the characters prayed for safety and protection before the bad stuff started happening (very rare in Hollywood). Neville begins as a Christian, but eventually loses faith because of all the horrible things that have happened. It is refreshing to see Neville not blame God for it, "God didn't do this, we did." We like to blame God when things go wrong. But Neville doesn't blame God because he doesn't believe in Him anymore. But then things start happening that make him sit up and take notice to the fact that something bigger might be happening. God may have a plan for all of this after all, but we have to listen. So many times in our lives we fail to see God's plans because we do not take the time to quiet ourselves and listen to His voice (like Elijah in the cave in 1Kings 19). But when Neville begins to listen to God, to welcome God back into his life, things change. The film ends with Marley's "Redemption Song," which is perfectly appropriate considering how the film ends (but I won't give it away).

Aside from the annoying product placement (Fords everywhere), I Am Legend was a pleasant surprise. This is one of the best big-budget blockbusters of the year, if not the best. Smith is great to watch as always, but the film has a depth that many mainstream Hollywood films are scared to dive into. Kudos Legend.

Atonement

Atonement has been adapted from the Ian McEwan novel for the screen and directed by Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice). James McAvoy plays Robbie Turner, a gardener at the Tallis estate in rural England during the 30's. The eldest sister Cecilia (played by a heroine-addict-thin Kiera Knightly) is beginning to show her feelings for Robbie. At the same time, the younger sister Briony (Saoirse Ronan) still has a crush on the older boy. Briony is only 13, so her crush is quite irrational, but very real nonetheless. A few awkward moments pass between Robbie and Cecilia, but those events lead up to a quite steamy scene in the library. While the lovers are in passionate embrace, Briony walks in. She is quite disturbed and becomes enraged with jealousy. Later that same night Briony witnesses something horrific. Instead of pointing the finger at the perpetrator, she sees this as an opportunity to get back at her sister and Robbie. So she frames Robbie. If Briony can't have him, no one can. This deception wreaks havoc upon the life of Robbie. He is sent to jail for four years, and can only leave to serve as a private in the Armed Forces, during WWII. Cecilia is also incredibly angry at the budding romance that was taken from her. How can Briony atone for her sin?

The power of words takes center stage in Atonement. There is a brilliant musical motif that combines rhythm with typing on a typewriter. Not only does it sound cool, but it highlights the fact that words play a major role in the lives of the three main characters. One important exchange in the film centers around a letter written by Robbie, Briony's words convict Robbie of rape, and Briony tries for years to write a novel about what happened. When Briony was a child, her words destroyed two lives. In the Bible we can also see the power of words (God spoke creation into being, Esau lost the blessing to Jacob because of words he spoke, John 1 states that the Word became flesh in Jesus, etc.). Words are important to God. The Bible is referred to as His Word. We must look upon what we say with much more reverence; we must take our words seriously. Yet Briony attempts to atone for her sins through her words as well, and this underscores that point that words have the power to heal, to give life, and to give happiness. Briony even states that in her novel she gave them something they would have not gotten otherwise: happiness. This emphasises the power of story as well. She had changed some events in the retelling of the story, so that she might atone for what she had done, and in some way make it up to them (the tagline for the film is "You can only imagine the truth"). She really believes that stories can heal and bring joy. So do I. That's the whole reason I write this blog.

So what is atonement? In Leviticus, God set up a holiday once a year for Israel to atone for their sins. It was called Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement). The High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies (after much cleansing of himself) and sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice on the Ark of the Covenant. He was required to wear bells and tie a rope around his ankle. This is because God's holy presence was in the room with him, and it was so awesome that it could strike the priest dead at any moment. If the other priests waiting outside did not hear the bells for a while, they would pull out the priest's body. No one else was allowed in. Now, when Jesus died, the curtain that separated this holy room from the rest of the temple is the one that was torn. God did this to show us that the separation between God and man has been destroyed through Christ. He is the curtain. Through Him we can now go to God without fear. So Israel had to atone (or make reparations/amends) for their sins every year. Then Christ did this, once for all time. So we as Christians now have the opportunity to truly give over our sins so that Christ can make amends for us, and in fact he already has. Yet, we are called to make things right with those we have wronged. We are called to repent, to seek forgiveness of those whom we hurt. This is what Briony's life has become. And we can see the horrible damage that putting this process off can cause to everyone involved.

World War II is a good backdrop for this story because in many ways the relationships in the film are a microcosm of war. These lives were destroyed because of anger and jealousy. These feelings turned into injustice. Isn't that why every war has ever been started? It seems like it sometimes. One peoplegroup is angry at another, or jealous of their land/money/position. It seems an apt parallel to me. Speaking of the war, there are no war action scenes to speak of in the film, but at one point Robbie catches up to his army on the beach after they have been defeated and are waiting to be taken back to England. This is an amazing scene for so many reasons. First, there are thousands and thousands of men on the beach. Some are happy, some sad, some singing, some going crazy, some fighting, some shooting horses, some staring off into space. And we see the devastation the war has wrought on these men all in one five minute epic shot, no cuts. It is truly a beautiful piece of filmmaking, putting you there in a way that most filmmakers only dream of.

The acting is superb, the directing is flawless, and the film looks great. No doubt this will be No Country For Old Men's best competition in the Best Picture race this year. Atonement is a magnificent story of how we hurt each other, why we hurt each other, and how we could ever make up for those sins. We truly have been made in God's image, given the power to create and destroy using only our words.

No Country For Old Men

The Great Coen Brothers (Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski, etc.) have adapted the Cormac McCarthy novel No Country For Old Men for the big screen. The plot centers around a man, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who finds a drug-deal/bloodbath in the desert. He soon finds $2 million and walks away. Little does he know a man of incomprehensible evil, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) wants that money. So begins the long chase. In the mean time, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is investigating these homicides, and a few others that Chigurh has perpetrated along the way.

Do you ever see a film and feel like something profound and incredible happened on screen but don't feel like you really caught it? That was my experience. This film has deep, deep truth in it but I am going to need another few viewings to grasp it. This is a film that causes the audience to feel inadequate in its shadow.

The main focus of the film centers around the question of evil. Why does it exist, where does it come from, is it inevitable, does it progress/lessen/stay the same over time and history? Chigurh is truly seen by the film as a psychopath (a term I like to stay away from because it assumes that there is no cause). The film offers no history or explanation for his evil-ness. At one point near the end of the film, Chigurh flips a coin and asks a potential victim to call it. He says that he got there the same way the coin got there, implying fate, or chance, or a mixture of the two. Is he saying that he was destined to kill people, that he didn't have a choice, it's all chance (the flip of a coin) or fate. Is this his justification for all he has done? Evil is seen throughout the film from a fatalistic, almost nihilistic point of view. One character says to Sheriff Bell: "You cain't stop what's comin'." This implies that evil has, and always will exist. We cannot stop it. Nothing Bell, or anyone else does, will make much of a difference. Yet we as humans still strive against it. The film is set in 1980, but the year isn't all that important. Evil was around then, horrific and unexplainable, just as it is around now. Evil is a disease that entered the world at the beginning of time, and we are helpless, utterly helpless, against it. There is only one who can, and will, conquer it: Jesus. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try with everything we have, but sometimes it seems as though all is lost.

The human condition is a difficult thing to grasp. It confounds us, yet we live in it. We look for explanations for why things are the way they are, as do the characters in the film. Fate, chance, God, why are things the way they are? Bell reads a story of a couple who murders old folks to his deputy near the end of the film. The couple was caught because an old man with a dog collar and nothing else was seen running away from their place (they tortured people). The deputy laughs. Bell says he laughed when he heard it the first time too. Sometimes evil is so difficult to understand that all you can do is laugh. The film even evokes some comic moments, some strange morbid chuckles.

There is a very real level of tension throughout the film. One scene involves Chigurh flipping a coin and asking a gas-station owner to call it. It is implied that the man's life depends on it. There is so much build-up that the audience wants to explode. No Country starts out very bloody and gruesome. By the end, the "important" murders are taken completely off-screen. Why is that? Matt Zoller Seitz, in his blog The House Next Door, suggests that we have a morbid fascination with all stories of extreme violence. Yet after a while the shine wears off, and we realize that it is just the same thing that has happened before. Again, it's nothing new.

*spoiler warning* Near the end of the film, after Chigurh whacks pretty much everyone and gets away scott-free he his blindsided by a random car. Just when we thought there was no justice in the world (is this a divine hand? fate again? chance?) But it comes too late. Then he is helped by a few young men, and one literally gives him the shirt off of his back. If anyone in the world should not receive help, it's Chigurh. Yet he receives grace. But it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Again, evil is truly incomprehensible.

As I predicted before, this film will be nomiated for Best Pic, and may win. No Country is shot in a stark, lonely and contemplative way. The music (which is the primary way films manipulate our emotions) is minimal, allowing us the space to think and to be confronted with evil. We have nowhere to run. The dialogue is quirky and unique. The acting is flawless. The film is masterful, but difficult to convey through words. I find that I am lacking much to say. Maybe that's a good thing.

Into The Wild

Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch) is tired. Tired of life, tired of society, tired of responsibility, tired of feeling trapped, tire of this world. So he leaves everything behind (his car, his life savings, his family, his future) and goes on a whirlwind journey that lasts two years and ends in the wilds of Alaska. This is a true story based upon the non-fiction book by Jon Krakauer. This is an epic journey Into The Wild.

On his travels, McCandless changes his name to Alexander Supertramp. He is changing his identity. So why does he feel the desire to be someone else? What is he running from? We soon discover that McCandless' childhood was rough, and in his opinion it was all a lie. His father was actually married to someone else the whole time, so McCandless considers himself a bastard. Plus, their home was full of strife and abuse. He does have some deep and troubling wounds, and we can sympathize with his desire to get away from it all. McCandless' desires resonate with all of us at some level. His desires are primal. He wants truth, purity, "real life" that this society we live in tends to stifle. In some sense, he wants to go back to Adam and Eve's state in the Garden before the fall. We as a human race retreat from the world in many ways, but it is all because of the pain and sin in the world. This human world is truly jacked up.

The storytelling style is non-linear, following two parallel veins. First, we see McCandless at the "magic bus" in Alaska, all alone. This is near the end of his life. Then we see frequent flashbacks as to how he got there. He meets various people along the way, from Arizona to South Dakota to California. The most interesting (and last) meeting is with an old man named Ron Franz (Hal Holbrook). Ron's wife and son were killed in an accident 35 years ago. He has not truly interacted with the world since. These two make for an odd pair. One day McCandless convinces the elderly Franz to climb to the top of a hill for a great view. While there Franz tells McCandless that he has to stop running from his past. He has got to forgive (and that is really what he is running from). Franz says "When we forgive, we love, and when we love, God's light shines on us." Right then the sun peeks its head out from behind the clouds, as if God is saying "I agree." Unforgiveness tears us apart. Even though others have hurt us, if we hold on to the anger and pain instead of accepting the healing that only comes from Jesus,we only hurt ourselves all the more. Forgiveness is very difficult sometimes, but it is essential in order to be whole again.

McCandless' search for true freedom is a common one, but ends in an ironic twist. His search, as he so eloquently puts by quoting Thoreau, is about truth. The truth is that when we throw off everything we have ever been and known we actually end up feeling trapped. True freedom, as Christ says in John 8:32, comes from obedience to someone greater (Christ himself). Another example of the upside-down world that Christ preaches and calls us to live. We have to trust him when things don't make sense. True freedom comes when we put Him in charge of our lives so we can be free to be ourselves in Him.

Another one of McCandless' epiphanies, as written in his diary just before death, reads like this: "Happiness only real when shared." He has ultimate "freedom" from the world and any other human relationships and responsibilities. But the truth is that this life was designed to be done in community. We are not whole when we are alone. We do have some value in being alone for a time, but true life must be done in the context of a group. Sadly, this tragic hero does not realize these truths until the end of his life, and he dies alone (don't worry, I didn't give anything away, we go in knowing he dies).

Into The Wild is truly an epic journey into the heart of what makes us human. It is a trek across our continent, but also across our souls. The themes investigated and expressed in this film are fundamental to all of us throughout all of history. Let us take this journey with our hero, and find out a little bit more about ourselves in the process.

Beowulf

Beowulf, the old English 8th century epic poem, comes to the big screen this time as a motion-capture animated film. And oh by the way, make sure you see it in 3-D.

Beowulf is set in the 6th century A.D. in Denmark. There is a great monster, Grendel, terrorizing a small kingdom. King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is at his wit's end after another slaughter. He is willing to give half the gold in his kingdom to anyone who will come and slay Grendel. Enter Beowulf (Ray Winstone), who comes with his band of Geats to fight not for money, but for glory. At the time, the hero is renowned for many great feats, including defeating sea-monsters. He is supremely confident and perfectly brave. He baits Grendel, then takes him on butt-naked without a sword.

There are some inaccuracies with the storyline (especially with regards to Grendel's mother, Angelina Jolie), but that is almost irrelevant. Beowulf itself is a poem written down after hundreds of years of oral tradition, where it could have been changed time and time again. The point is that the hero's legend grows. He is great, he is bold, he is courageous, he is human.

What is a hero? That is the central question of the film. Beowulf comes from a land far off to slay the wicked monsters and to win fame and glory. He is the very definition of a hero. Yet the film sprinkles in references to the Christ God that I found very interesting. First they wonder if this God will save them, they might as well pray to him too. But King Hrothgar says that the gods will not help them with what they will not do themselves (echoes of Ben Franklin's "God helps those who help themselves"). Later, it is said that "the time of heroes is dead, the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind nothing but weeping martyrs." It is supposed to be a stab at Christianity, but there is deep truth in it. Jesus is not like all the ancient epic heroes. He is opposed to them. Jesus could have called down all the angels, led Israel out of Roman occupation, and even taken down Satan himself. But he didn't, instead he became the ultimate martyr. He sacrifices himself for the good of all mankind, for the good of the whole world. Jesus is the ultimate hero. The people of Beowulf would see Him as a weakling, as do many today. But Jesus' life and death was the be-all-end-all of courage and strength. We have to reexamine what we believe a hero to be. It hasn't changed much since Beowulf was committed to paper (or since the beginning of time for that matter). Yet, Jesus shows us another way, the true way.

The film itself has an intriguing storyline. The human condition is front and center. Human pride and human greed are examined and found to be a plague. Even the great Beowulf cannot resist the wiles of sin. Humankind has not changed much in 1500 years. Beowulf is exciting, the animation is truly fantastic most of the time (except sometimes, when it looks like a video game). It was actually quite gratuitous for a pg-13 film, in terms of gore and sex. The 3-D adds quite a bit to the visual aspect of the film, without it the film would probably be mediocre. Overall, this film captures the spirit of the ancient epic (glory, bloodshed, the human condition) quite well.

American Gangster

Ridley Scott is one of the most prolific directors alive today. He has had some fantastic films over the years (Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down, and Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut), but also some very mediocre material, especially the overrated Braveheart rip-off known as Gladiator. Fortunately for us, here Scott hits another one out of the park.

American Gangster is the rags-to-riches story of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), a Southern black man who rises to fame and fortune in Harlem during the Vietnam era. Lucas starts out as the driver for a prominent area business man/crime boss. When his boss dies, Lucas decides he has the desire and the know-how to take control of Harlem. The business is heroine. Lucas is a savvy, intelligent, hard-working businessman. He wants the best product possible, so he goes directly to the source to make sure its pure (Vietnam). Then he sells his product, which is better than the competition's, for a lower price. He creates a virtual heroine monopoly. In comes Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), a clean, honest cop who is trying to take down the drug trade in New Jersey. But Lucas is smart, so it will take some brilliant work to catch him.

Lucas lives the American Dream. He works hard to make a name for himself. He gets rich, he becomes a figure looked up to in the community, and he provides a comfortable life for his family. He buys a beautiful home for his mother, gives his wife everything she wants, and provides lucrative jobs for his brothers. But American Gangster can be seen as a scathing indictment of the American Dream. The only thing that separates Lucas from everyone else who we look up to as a hero for the American Dream is the fact that his product is heroine, and that's illegal. He also has an extremely cutthroat way of going about business (ie. shooting his rivals on the street, in broad daylight at a crowded market), but think about the way other legitimate businesses go about what they do. I am not saying big business is evil, but greed is, and that is what drives many, many people in the business world. You have to be greedy to be good. Plus, as is pointed out by one character in the film, success equals enemies. If you want to have friends, don't be successful. Business is business, so let us examine how we do business. Let us see that people like Frank Lucas can exist outside of crime rings. Let us understand that God desires us to do business and participate with businesses that act with integrity, with honesty. And most of all, let us not buy into the American Dream completely and wholly. We all want a nice life, we all want to provide for our families. But at what cost? There is more to life than success, something Lucas did not realize. His pride is what drove him, and pride can be a very costly thing.
Who are our heroes? Why are they our heroes?

Crowe's Roberts is also a multifaceted character. One day in court, while he and his wife are battling over the custody of their children, Roberts' wife says that he thinks there are two kinds of honesty. You see, Roberts does the right thing at his job (especially when it comes to not taking money on the side), and is proud of that. But on the flip side he has abandoned his wife and son. He is, in effect, living two lives. He sees himself as an honest man because of one life, but the other life he is leading is destructive. Roberts fails to realize that good men live (or at least try to live) honestly all the time, it's a holistic thing.

"Everyone else does it, why shouldn't I?" This is an argument that usually comes up with younger people, and may be seen as immature. Yet, this is the line of reasoning the vast majority of the cops in New York at the time use to justify their taking of bribes. In fact, not only do they take bribes but they mistrust anyone who turns money in instead of keeping it (which is exactly what Roberts does near the beginning of the film). We all know that argument is ridiculous, yet we all use it from time to time. But in the end, God knows everyone's actions, and everyone's hearts. He knows. We all have a responsibility to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of what those around us are doing. Even if corruption runs deep, justice will come whether in this life or the next (which is a scary thought).

So where does American Gangster fit into the lexicon of Mobster cinema? In my humble opinion, no other sub-genre has turned out so many fantastic films over the years (On The Waterfront, Donnie Brasco, The Departed, Road to Perdition, Goodfellas, Snatch, Once Upon A Time in America and of course the great Godfather films; the list goes on and on). Scott adds another fine chapter to an already stunning collection. The film is brutal when it needs to be. It paints its protagonist in a horrific yet idealistic light. It brings us face to face with questions about who we are as individuals and as a country. At one point in the film Lucas talks about how he will not leave, he will not surrender, he will not back down, even after people try to kill him: "This is my home. My country. Frank Lucas don't run from nobody. This is America." The film is aptly titled. This is America. So who are we as a nation? And what is our American Dream?

This is a beautiful story we can all relate to, especially men. We want to provide as much as we can for those we love, we want people to look up to us, and we want to be important. So do we want to be Frank Lucas?

Knocked Up

A few weeks ago, one of my female students was excited about turning seventeen and being able to rent R films, so she yelled to her friend: "Hey Cady, we can go get knocked up!" Ah, funny stuff.

Judd Aptow, who brought us The 40-Year-Old Virgin, spins another tale of gross sex jokes that touches our heart. Seth Rogen plays Ben Stone, a total loser who goes out one night and ends up in bed with Alison Scott, played by Katherine Heigl. Certain birth control procedures are overlooked, and Alison ends up getting pregnant. It was a one-night stand, so Ben has no idea. When Alison finds out, she contacts him and they try to figure out where to do from there. Ben must decide whether he will grow up, be a man and take responsibility for his actions, or if he will continue down his promising life path (smoking weed every night, starting an internet porn business, and living off a Canadian government check sent because a mailman ran over his foot). Alison has to decide if she wants to keep the baby at all (her family members encourage her to just "take care of it;" euphamisms point out that fact that they are too appalled by their own suggestion to say "abortion"). She must also decide if she thinks Ben is going to be a guy worth keeping around for her child. The characters in the film are faced with some major choices.

This film is over the top in its dialogue, so be forewarned. It is as vulgar as is humanly possible. It is not for everyone, or for that matter it is not for hardly anyone. Yet, that's the way guys talk sometimes when women aren't present (sad but true). But out of this horribly disturbing dialogue comes this tender, beautiful, and true to life film. Knocked Up captures human relationships (especially between a man and a woman) SO much better than any "chick flick" I have ever seen. It dives right in to the struggles that married people face (there is this great scene in which Alison's sister thinks her husband is out cheating on her, but he is really at a fantasy baseball draft). The insight Aptow has into the way we treat each other, into the way real relationships generally go, is astounding. It is so refreshing to see a Hollywood movie be honest for once about sex, about marriage, and about having a child. What does it or should it look like to be a mother or father, a husband or wife, and still be yourself? How do we love others while battling our overwhelming desire to be selfish? How do we invest in others and keep our own personality? All good questions. Just remember, being honest also means that we may be uncomfortable at times.

I was pleasantly suprised by Knocked Up. This is a very good movie. It is not for everyone, and you may want to be careful who you watch it with, but there is incredible depth to the insight put forth here. Plus, it just flat-out hilarious. And the film does not glorify any sinful behaviors. It shows how ridiculous people are sometimes. It also reminds us that the decisions we make have consequences, even if we are drunk when we make them. To be honest, the film is so raw and real that it makes us very uncomfortable, and sometimes that is what we need.

Gone Baby Gone

Wow. This film blew me away. Gone Baby Gone is the brutal and fascinating story of a little girl who has gone missing. Was she kidnapped, murdered? Casey Affleck plays Patrick Kenzie, private investigator hired, along with his parter Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan), to help out in any way they can: aiding the police, talking to shady people, using their contacts, etc. They work with (and butt heads with) the police assigned to the case, including Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman. The story is multi-faceted and has incredible depth, but its hard to describe without giving too much away. The screenplay is based on the novel by Dennis Lahane, who also penned the epic Mystic River. That should be a clue as to the gravity of the themes and ideas put forth in the film.

This film makes its home in the gray areas of morality. Sometimes, the choices we make are very complicated and it is hard to tell what the right decision is. Patrick starts the film by asking "How do we get to heaven, while protecting ourselves from all the evil in the world?" Then he is reminded of Scripture, when Jesus told his disciples to be as innocent as doves, but as cunning as serpents (Mt. 10:16). Religious undertones are all over this film, which has echoes of Martin Scorsese. So what does it look like to be innocent, yet cunning?

Patrick Kenzie is a man of courage and strength. He is willing to give up everything in his life in order to do what he perceives is right. The funny thing is, the audience may or may not agree with his choices. Casey Affleck does a fine job pulling this complex character off.

Gone Baby Gone investigates the letter of the law. Should we always follow it? What about if it "feels" right to do something else. The choices are hard, very gray. It's also one of those movies in which you think its over too soon. "Well, that was pretty good." But then it goes on, and adds layer upon layer, and keeps you in rapt attention until the final scene.

At one point, Ed Harris' character (Remy Bressant) is having a heated discussion with Patrick. He says that everyone has to choose a side, either you are on the side of the child molester, or you aren't (he is talking about times in his career when he did some unethical things in order to get a good result). Bressant explains why he believes that the ends justify the means. They are also discussing murder. Patrick says "murder is murder." But Bressant believes that it depends on who you kill. Wouldn't it be better to rid the world of a child molester/killer who is already a repeat offender? No one wants a "monster" like that out on the streets, harming the ones we love. Then Patrick says: "My priest told me that guilt is God's way of telling us that what we have done is wrong." Is that true? Paul tells us "There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus." Isn't guilt a form of condemning ourselves? Maybe, but we need someone to tell us right and wrong, why not our conscience? Sometimes we need to feel conviction to turn us back around.

The main crux of the film is this question: "do people change?" Some say no, others are willing to give people another chance. Do child molesters change? Do bad parents change? Can traumatic events, loss of loved ones, prison, punishment, etc., change us to be better people? The answer is no. The only one that can truly change us and redeem us is Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

Ben Affleck's directorial debut is stunning. I hate most of his films (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Paycheck, Gigli, etc.), so maybe he belongs behind a camera. It is easy to approach this film with apprehension, but Affleck hits it out of the park. This is the best film of the year so far. Gone Baby Gone has depth, insight into the human condition, and is not afraid to dive headlong into gray areas that I had never even thought of. As with most great films, there are no easy answers, life is usually not that way. What a gut-wrenching, heart-pounding thriller with courage and power. God is all over the place in this one.

Michael Clayton

Tony Gilroy's (screenplay for the Bournes, The Devil's Advocate, etc.) much lauded directorial debut stars George Clooney as Michael Clayton, a "fixer" for one of the most powerful law firms in the world. What is a "fixer?" Well, when there is any type of situation that goes awry (whether it be a client or a lawyer), Clayton takes care of it by any means necessary. He is creative, smooth-talking, and bold. Some call him a miracle-worker, but we may see him as a master manipulator. He calls himself a janitor, cleaning up other people's messes.

The central problem of the film that Michael must fix is Arthur Edens (played wonderfully by one of the most underrated actors going today - Tom Wilkinson). You see, Edens is the lead defense attourney for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against mega-corporation UNorth. The lawsuit involves over 450 individuals, claiming that UNorth's product, a pesticide, has killed their loved ones. But instead of defending his uber-rich client, Edens begins acting strange and compiling facts against his employer. He is convinced that the claimants deserve to be paid, that UNorth is covering something up. But what brings this change of heart for Edens? And is he right, or just crazy? (He exhibits some insane behavior, including stripping down and yelling "I love you" to a young girl during a deposition). Edens lives in a world where the dollar is truly almighty, and "the truth can be adjusted." He has been working on this case non-stop for six years. But he starts to have this feeling that what he is doing is wrong. There is this peculiar scene near the middle of the film where Clayton's son, Henry, calls for his dad, but gets Edens instead. Henry ends up telling Edens all about his favorite fantasy book, Realm and Conquest. I believe Edens wanted to do the right thing, but the only one in his world who believed that people actually do the right thing and that heroes exist was Henry. Henry believes in stories, he believes that right and wrong exist and that money does not rule everything. And through the words of a child, a super-laywer is inspired to change his life. It reaffirms the fact that stories have power, real life-changing power. That, in effect is the whole point of this blog, to remind us of that fact. It also reminds me of that bumper sticker, "Believe the Children."

Though Edens is the most fascinating man in the film, let's get back to the main character. There is a scene at the beginning of the film when Clayton sees some horses high atop a hill, gets out of his car, walks up to the horses, and seems to have a religious moment. But it takes the whole film to explain this scene (clue: it has something to do with Realm and Conquest, another reference to the power of story). It is truly an existential moment in Clayton's life. He is asking to himself "Who am I? What have I missed? What am I doing with my life? And why?" I won't give away what leads up to this, and his actions that follow, but this moment is the centerpiece of the film. The final scene of the movie is Clayton riding around in a cab, not knowing where to go. He jsut hands the cabbie $50 and just tells him to drive around. This confirms that fact that he is questioning his whole existence, his entire life. Where do I go now?

Michael Clayton is a beautifully shot, wonderfully acted thinking man's law thriller. At the same time, it is an examination and indictment of the way we live our lives here in a capitalist society. It reminds us to reflect upon our own lives. We should continually ask the question: Who am I? And what am I doing with my life, with my time here on earth?

We Own The Night

We Own The Night gets its name from the 1980's slogan of the NYC police force, who was attempting to crack down on the drug trade that had been running rampant throughout the city for years. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Bobby Green, a nightclub owner who has many shady friends. He lives and thrives in the seedy underbelly of NYC. But his family connections are not known in those circles, because that could be deadly. You see, his father Burt (Robert Duvall) is a police Captain, and his brother Joseph (Mark Wahlberg) is also a cop. It turns out that Joe is the head of a new investigation unit, focusing on narcotics traffic, and guess where the kingpin they want to hit hangs out? That's right, Bobby's club. Bobby is caught between two worlds, his family and his desire to live a wild and crazy life. Where do his loyalties lie? Do people change?

We Own The Night paints a pretty clear picture of right and wrong: cops versus drug-dealers. Bobby must decide who he really is. By living this "other" life, he is in essence denying who he really is, his family and history. Does he have the courage and bravery it takes to switch sides, to help out the good guys? He is given an opportunity to inform for the cops, but how will that pan out? Which side will he choose?

I am reminded that God uses even our flaws for his glory, for greater purposes. Bobby has lived a bad life, made a lot of mistakes, and has a lot to regret. Yet, his flaws can be used for good, if he so chooses. He has vital connections; relationships with people that won't talk to the police. When takes something evil and turns it into good it is called redemption. But what will Bobby choose.

What jumped out at me was the idea that our private/personal decisions affect so many more people than we realize. Bobby's decisions throughout his life, including ones he makes during the course of the film, put his family and loved ones in danger. We are individuals, but we are not completely separate entities. Our choices affect more than just us. And this doesn't happen to just Bobby. At one point in the film we discover how even children are being put in harm's way because of the actions of another bad guy. Let's think about our choices, and not deceive ourselves into believing that they only matter to us.

This film also brings up the ever-popular theme in our society: revenge. There are many opportunities for revenge. When this idea comes up in film we must ask ourselves "Does this movie glorify revenge? Are we now inspired to go out and take revenge on our enemies?" Because, Jesus did not tell us to seek vengeance, but to love our enemies. Let us not be deceived. I think the ending of the film leaves room for interpretation on this one, so you be the judge.

We Own The Night is a well-acted, tight and intriguing cop-drama which delves into the themes of family, courage, morality, and loyalty.

The Kingdom

The Kingdom comes at us as yet another film set in the Middle East, this time in Saudi Arabia. I am fascinated with this region of the world for all kinds of reasons, so I am very excited about all these new movies. It stars Jamie (I'm the man) Foxx, Jennifer (I can't act) Garner, Jason (I suck when I'm not on Arrested Development) Bateman, and Chris (possibly the second greatest living actor) Cooper. This makes up a special unit of the F.B.I. that manipulates its way into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to investigate a terrorist hit on a Western oil compound in Riyaud.

The opening sequence to the film is great, with a boatload of information on the history of Saudi Arabia and its connection to the U.S. Very interesting and well done. After the intro, the film goes on a terrorist hunt.

The Feds quickly run into the cultural differences between a democracy and a Muslim theocracy (especially in regards to the treatment of women). Also, the politics are quite intriguing. We want to go over there to catch the bad guys, and we are good at what we do. They see that as an insult to their competency. Plus, Westerners in Arab lands always spells trouble. It would be a disaster for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia if one of our elite agents were caught, killed, etc. Thus, the Feds are restricted at every turn by the Saudi government.

The most interesting aspect of the film comes in the form of Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, a Saudi police officer charged with watching the Americans. He is a Muslim, but sees the error of Fundamentalism, and wishes to catch the terrorists as bad as the Americans. He is criticized heavily by all for seeming to side with the West, a heinous crime in Arab countries. It is good to see Hollywood putting human faces on Arabs, giving them thoughts and feelings. Helping us to see them as people. But at the same time, the Kingdom does a great job of reminding us that there still are terrorists who believe that Allah desires horrendous violence. Not all Arabs are the same, and we cannot become prejudiced.

The Kingdom is brutal in its depiction of terrorism, as well it should be. The film is intense and exciting. Yet it rarely goes beyond a well-done action flick. It is set in the middle-east, but does not delve into the issues as deeply as other great films (such as Munich, Syriana, Paradise Now or even Black Hawk Down). The final line of the film does provide a great picture to ponder though, and seems to sum up the entire problem of these conflicts. I don't believe this is a spoiler, because I am not giving away any plot points, but feel free to stop reading if you prefer. In the end, we see Foxx's character, Fleury, say that before going over to S.A. he told Garner's character that they would "kill them all." And that is exactly the same thing the terrorist mastermind whispered to his grandson. That is a powerful statement, and it reminds us that both sides are "right and holy" in their own eyes. The myth of redemptive violence plays out over and over and over again, with no true redemption in sight.

Oscar Predictions that are bold as all get out

I thought I would take a wild stab at predicting the Oscars five months in advance, then I can go back and show everyone what a genius I am (or more likely what an idiot I am). So, here we go:

Best Picture

The nominees will be:

There Will Be Blood

Atonement

No Country For Old Men

and the other two I am not so sure about, so let's say two of the following: Elizabeth, Into the Wild, The Kite Runner, American Gangster.

There are a whole bunch of web sites where you can get really early predictions, and they are usually wrong (like Dreamgirls last year and Cinderella Man the year before), and I do check those regularly, so I can't claim complete innovation. Yet I am very confident in my top three, and predict here and now, on October 5th, that the Coen's No Country For Old Men will take the top prize. The Academy owes it to them for not giving BP to Fargo (instead they went with the crappy The English Patient). It looks dark, disturbing, and very, very good. This will be a great year for Tommy Lee Jones too (not only for NCFOM but also In The Valley of Elah, which might get him a statue for Best Actor). I have no clue on actress at this point. I hope beyond hope that Paul Thomas Anderson will get Best Director, and so far he has been getting good buzz.

Hooray for pointless predictions! Go out there and see some movies folks, as all the good ones are coming out soon, or are already out.

In The Valley of Elah

Paul Haggis (Crash, writer of Flags/Letters and Million Dollar Baby) writes and directs this controversial drama about a father's search for the truth. Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank Deerfield, a man who has just been informed that his son has returned from Iraq, but gone AWOL. Soon Deerfield and his wife (played by Susan Sarandon) find out their son has been cut into pieces and burned in a field. The murder mystery ensues. Detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) is hounded by Deerfield, he wants the truth no matter what it is. Sanders, after much juristiction jostling, eventually finds some good leads, and it takes off from there.

Lets start with Hank Deerfield. He was in the military, and both of his sons follow in his footsteps. There are some major dad issues here. Not to say Deerfield is a bad father though. He is a great man, patient, strong, courageous, honorable. Yet, he seems to have sent a subconscious message to his sons that they have to be military men in order to become "real" men. What is the definition of manhood? That's a darn good question, one whose answer could solve many of our society's ills. We find out later that Deerfield's first son died service to his country ten years ago. Also, Mike, the murdered man, has wanted to come home from Iraq. He called his dad and told him he couldn't handle it anymore. Was his father diappointed in him? Mike ends up staying, and when Deerfield finds out the truth, he is devestated because he did not support his son. Jones does a masterful job as a man's man dealing with the demons from his own past as well as the guilt and remourse of losing his sons. Above all, I believe Deerfield's greatest attribute is courage. The tagline to the film is: "Sometimes finding the truth is easier than facing it." Deerfield wants to find the truth, and then look it straight in the eye, no matter what it is. He is fearless when faced with incredible pain and heartache.

Haggis has been called "a hamhanded moralist" because he tends to beat the audience over the head with his point. He has no subtlety. This can be good and/or bad, just know that there is a strong point Haggis is trying to get across to his audience: What does war do to people? What is this war doing to our young men and women? War is hell, everyone knows that, (or at least the abstract concept). If we train our soldiers to be machines, because that is essential for survival on the battlefield, how are they supposed to turn that off when they get home? Is the gain of war worth the cost? (Isn't that an age-old question?)

The film gets its title from the Bible. David fought Goliath in the valley of Elah. In one of the films more tender moments, Deerfield tells this story to David's namesake, the son of Det. Sanders. David was a young man who had great courage, and overcame great odds. He defeated the giant. So why does Haggis choose this title? The war is the giant, and the young soldiers we send over are all Davids. All war is a giant, and we as humanity are huge underdogs, it seems as if we will never be able to stop it. This murder, especially the truth behind it, is a giant, and Deerfield must be courageous in fighting it. Yet, as my lovely wife pointed out, this world does not seem so cut and dry, as it did in the time of Scripture (at least on the surface). It is hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. We all have good and evil inside of us. But we have to remember David wasn't all good either (and I'm sure Goliath actually had some positive qualities). As a side note, I love seeing films with my wife, because she helps me see so much more than I would have seen on my own. Thanks Tiff.

Haggis is as provoking a filmmaker as there is in Hollywood today. He succeeds again in making us think and feel. This film has layers upon layers, and I feel that I have only scratched the surface (plus the thing I really want to write about would give the story away, and I try not to do that too much).

This film, if it ends up being successful, will cause much controversy. Bush is famous for using us/them and good/evil language, reminding us of Biblical stories like David v. Goliath. Is it worth it that we are there? Everyone has a strong opinion on that topic already, and I don't think this film will change any minds. But we shouldn't limit it to Iraq. We must translate Elah to all of war, and to the human condition in general.

This film could be taken as anti-war propaganda, but I don't see it that way. I have many friends who have fought or are fighting in Iraq right now, and I have tremendous respect for them. But Haggis separates the soldiers from the idea of war in general. Maybe it is propaganda though, I could be wrong.

Near the beginning of the film, a janitor at a local school accidentally hangs the flag upside down. Deerfield drives up and helps the man, telling him that an upside-down flag means that whoever is flying it is in severe trouble, they need major help. The film ends at that same flagpole, with Deerfield raising the flag upside-down himself.

Eastern Promises

Brutal. Disturbing. Painful. Apalling. David Cronenberg does not sugar coat anything. Instead, he coats it with broken glass. Do not watch this film unless you have a strong stomach.

That being said, Eastern Promises offers us a privileged and engrossing look into the Russian Mob of London. Naomi Watts plays Anna Khitrovna, a midwife at a local hospital who treats a young woman who dies while giving birth. The baby is left at the hospital with no known family. The only piece of the puzzle Anna has is a diary left by the girl, but it is in Russian. After some investigation, Anna gets caught up with a Russian crime family. She meets Nikolai, the family's driver and aspiring gangster. Anna pesters Nikolai with questions about why he is doing this, why is he acting like such a horrible person. She must see something more than those around her, more than we see maybe.

We are quickly drowned in the disgusting actions of the mob, and want to go take a shower. Cronenberg is disgustingly honest in how he portrays his gangsters. We come to understand a world completely different than the one most of us live in. Human sin sometimes runs wild in this world.

One aspect of the film that fascinates me is the tattoos. Every Russian convict writes his history on his body with ink. Each design, as well as each placement, has a unique meaning. For example, the place above the heart is reserved for the family to which the man pledges his loyalty. A man's personal narrative is written for all to see, yet so closely guarded.

So why is Nikolai like this? The answer to that question is the point of the film, and what makes it interesting and possibly worth it.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others is set in East Berlin, 1984. This German film, which won the Oscar for best Foreign Film last year, tells the story of one man's surveillance of another. East Germany's government at the time was a socialist totalitarian state. No one was allowed to disagree with the Party or the State. Thus, the government sent the Stasi to investigate certain people they deemed "suspicious." One such man was Georg Dreyman, a playwright. So the Stasi sent Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler to set up shop one floor above Dreyman's apartment (audio, video, phone surveillance, etc.). By the way, its so mindboggling to see this technology and remember that we used to have to have wires connecting everything. Dreyman seems to be a devout follower of the Socialist Party, but one government official deems it necessary to spy on him, why? It turns out, its because this official has the hots for Dreyman's girlfriend, and thus wants him out of the way. Ah, governmental corruption. So will Wiesler find any dirt on Dreyman? Will there be any need to imprison him?
Let's focus on Wiesler for a moment. Near the beginning we come to the understanding that the man is a spying machine. He has no feelings, does his job perfectly, and has unswerving loyalty to his ideals. Yet he is human, we see him at home, lonely, wanting any human contact he can get (thus, a prostitute). But when he finds out that officials are using his "noble" job for personal gain, his heart begins to change. How much will it change though? Will he end up trying to help Dreyman? And if so, why? Is that redemption?
We as the viewer are appalled at the level of intrusion the government has upon these people's lives. We believe, as Americans, that we have our own right to privacy and freedom. This, I believe, is one of the highest ideals in American society. And this is a good thing, but sometimes our entitlement attitude about privacy can cause harm. We can become isolated from the rest of the world, from people outside our own small circles. We can claim that we have the right to do anything, and that our choices are ours alone; they obviously don't affect anyone else. Too much of a good thing?
The Lives of Others carries a very intriguing romance with it. Dreyman's girlfriend has to make some difficult decisions. Can they trust each other? In a society of suspicion and control (a la Big Brother) can anyone trust anyone? How can people have real relationships this way? The film also brings up the age old question "is it ever okay to lie?" Deception plays a key role in the characters' attempts to bring about justice. Is God pleased with that?
This German film puts us uncomfortably close to these people. We feel as though we are intruding all the time, and that is the point. Others ends up being a very good film, well worth the time (though I would have chosen Pan's Labyrinth as Best Foreign Film).
Let us be thankful the Iron Curtain fell, let us be greatful of our rights and freedoms here in American, but let us also remember that privacy and freedom can be abused by all of us. Let us take our rights as responsibilities and privileges, not as things we are automatically entitled to.

3:10 To Yuma

It looks like the western is making a comeback this year. The first of two high-profile westerns (the second being next week's Assassination of Jesse James .... ) comes to us from James Mangold, who helmed Walk the Line. 3:10 To Yuma stars Russell Crowe as the outlaw Ben Wade. After robbing twenty-two stagecoaches, Wade is finally caught in a small town in northern Arizona. But Wade's gang will not let him be held for long. The lawmakers know this, so they hire as many hands to help out as they can. This group of gunslingers must escort Wade to the trainstation a few towns over, so that they can get him on the 3:10 to Yuma prison. This is where Dan Evans (Christian Bale) comes in. Evans and his boys come upon a coach that Wade has robbed. He lets them go, but Evans follows him into town. He then assists in the catching of Wade, and volunteers to help escort him. Why is he willing to do this? Money, maybe, but mostly to prove himself to his boys.
Films and novels are filled with stories of sons trying to gain the approval of their fathers, but Yuma flips that on its head. Evans' eldest son, William, thinks his father lacks courage. In fact, William idolizes outlaws like Wade. He believes that his father won't stand up to the bad guys. William buys into the myth of redemptive violence wholeheartedly. So Evans embarks upon this epic journey to gain the respect of his son, and to prove to himself he is a courageous man (his Civil War service plays into this theme as well). Is this a foolish thing Evans is jumping into, or is his son pushing him to be a better man? Who will his sons grow up to be? You will have to see the film to find out whether William ends up proud of his father.
Wade is a very likable theif/murderer. He is funny, charismatic, and rather charming. One scene in particular sticks out to me, when Wade is being hidden at the Evans household, and they share a meal as a pseudo-family. One of the Evans boys asks why they haven't said grace yet, and they proceed to say grace because, as the mother reminds them, "grace is for everyone," even killers.
So why are so many man willing to put their lives at risk to see this one man go to jail. Why didn't they just "accidentally" kill him on the way there. Granted, the gang would have exacted their revenge mightily, but they will still be angry if he goes to jail. It all seems rather pointless. Yet, sometimes we have to go to extreme ends to do what is right. True justice takes hard work, whereas vigilante justice is quick and easy. But that is what made the west so wild in the first place.
*spoiler alert* In the end, Evans inspires even Wade. His courage and strength cause Wade to look up to Evans and admire him. In a rather unbelievable turn of events (that actually works out in the end) Wade is willing to go with Evans on the last march to the train. True courage can inspire anyone.
3:10 To Yuma asks the question "What makes a man?" It also asks "To what length will you go to see that justice is served?" Mangold succeeds on every level, and makes a western truly deserving of the name.

Preparation for Oscar Season 2007

It has been suggested that I write a post on what films I am most excited about this year. So here we go:
There are many, many films I am stoked about coming out in the next few months (as 95% of the good stuff is released during the last three months of the year). The two that I am most excited about are from two of my favorite directors: Francis Ford Coppola and Paul Thomas Anderson.
Coppola's film is called Youth Without Youth, and it is about an old man who becomes young again because of a lightning strike. In the 70's Coppola had the greatest decade in the history of film (Godfather 1 and 2, and Apocalypse Now) but sadly, he has not returned to form since. Let's hope this is a step in the right direction (pun intended). It could be great, it could be mediocre.
PTA's film is called There Will Be Blood, starring Daniel Day Lewis. Since Anderson did the greatest film of all-time, Magnolia, I have high expectations of everything he does. It is about an oil tycoon in America during the 20's/30's. And the trailer is finally out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37BwmU1Am1I&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eawardsdaily%2Ecom%2F. I am tentatively suggesing this will be my number 1 at the end of the year, maybe with some Oscar nods as well.
Here are a few others I am very excited about:
Into the Wild (9/21), directed by Sean Penn, is about a guy who ventures into the wilds of Alaska by himself and is found dead two years later. Eddie Vedder does the soundtrack. Based on the book by Jon Krakauer, good stuff.
The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (9/21), starring Brad Pitt, is another western that looks really interesting. I'm pretty sure the title tells you all you need to know about the plot.

Darjeeling Limited (9/28), written and directed by Wes Anderson, stars Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson (no comments about his personal life) and Jason Schwartzman. Anderson is always quirky, interesting, and funny. I have no idea what it's about, but hey.
Ridley Scott. The mob. Denzel and Russell Crowe. Enough said. American Gangster (11/2).
No Country For Old Men (11/9), by the impeccable Coen brothers, will definately get a Best Pic nod, and it looks really, really disturbing. Which means it will be really good, along the lines of Fargo.
Atonement (12/7), based on the novel by Ian McEwan (who rocks), is getting a lot of early Oscar buzz. It stars Kiera Knightley and James McAvoy. This one will be very good.
Charlie Wilson's War (Xmas), directed by Mike Nichols, stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Talk about star power.
Clooney's Michael Clayton looks good too., as does Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and Reservation Road (from the director of Hotel Rwanda).
There are also quite a few movies about the middle-east/Afganistan/Iraq/the war, etc. that look interesting: The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah, The Kite Runner, and Lions For Lambs.
Others that I am not sure about yet but will be getting a lot of attention: Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Ang Lee's Lust, Caution, Cronenberg's Eastern Promises and (cringe) Beowulf. And apparently, Rendition sucks, but we'll see.
Ok, so there are a few hundren movies you all need to go out and see. Man, I can't wait. It's the most wonderful time of the year.

2005 Top Ten List

2005 was, for all intents and purposes, a very good year in film (especially when compared with 2006). There were many films which I thought were deserving of a slot on my top 10 list (ie. Good Night and Good Luck, The Upside of Anger, Syriana, Match Point, March of the Penguins, and Millions). But I managed to whittle it down. So nearly two years late, here are the films you must go back and invest in if you missed them the first time around:

10. Grizzly Man

An incredible documentary portrait of a man who fails to recognize the God-made line between humans and animals. Grizzlies are not fuzzy, cuddly animals. This film, more than any I have ever seen, displays how awe-inspiring and dangerous God's creation is (and I take comfort in knowing that we are not the only creatures with power and strength).


9. Weather Man

I am not the biggest Nic Cage fan in the world, but this film was an intimate investigation into the life of a man dealing with modernity. It is hard to explain why this film floored me, but it just felt real and different.


8. Capote

A beautiful and highly lauded bio-pic, this film is more than just an Oscar-winning performance by the best actor in Hollywood right now. It is an analysis of obsession. Can we be close to evil without being influenced by it? Is it permissible for people to manipulate others for a greater good? What drives people to murder? The questions pile up.


7. Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut

Ridley Scott's original film was good, but the DC adds an hour and a half of character development, which is what the film lacks. Though it isn't the most historically accurate film, KoH is beautiful and epic without being overdone. Balian, the main characer, exemplifies what a Christian's response to war should be (at least in my mind). Scott investigates philosophies and ideologies that are extremely prevalent today (religious war, "in the name of God," etc.). Very timely.


6. The New World

Although the plot is good, this film doesn't even need a plot. Terrence Malick has created quite possibly the most beautiful piece of cinematography I have seen on film. [See full review]


5. The Constant Gardener

A gut-wrenching story of love and social justice set in Kenya, Fernando Mereilles' film succeeds on nearly every level. [See full review]

4. Junebug

Junebug is an intimate story of how a family welcomes someone completely foreign to them. A man brings a woman from NYC "down home" to the South. The interactions that ensue are fascinating. This film is subtle, honest, and thought-provoking. It is all about family and marriage.

3. Brokeback Mountain

Hello controversy. This beautiful and heartbreaking story is much more than gay cowboys. It tells the story of these two men in a non-judgmental way. Anyone could see this as a pro-gay film, but Ang Lee doesn't editorialize. He is merely telling a story. One thing is for sure, Brokeback shows that homosexuality is not a private issue, it affects everyone in the film. Though graphic at times, I hope Christians will give this movie a shot with a Christ-like mind of love and truth.

2. Crash

This film epitomizes redemption. The plot interweaves many story-arcs during one day in L.A. Every character has their preconceptions about others. But Crash is not limited to a "racism is bad" movie. This film goes deep inside the human heart and tries to explain why we tend to hate each other for any reason. Crash is brutally honest, which is what we need to see. Everyone can choose or reject redemption, but redemption can come.

1. Munich

Spielberg's grossly underrated masterpiece. How could he make such a great film and a crappy one (War of the Worlds) in the same year? Well, there are many different Spielbergs, apparently. Munich deals with the complex politics of the Middle Ease with gritty honesty and even-handedness. The film delves into the ideas of revenge, family, nationality, religion, and violence in general. Munich is a beautiful memorial.

.....

I would love to hear feedback. What were your favorites? What movies should have been on here, in your opinion, and of course, what sucks?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter has long been a source of conflict and controversy among Christians. I will gladly skip over all of that by saying that by this time you are either a Potter fan, or you aren't. I am, big time.
The fifth installment of the Potter series picks up the narrative just as things are starting to get really dark, and Voldemort is beginning to muster his forces. At Hogwarts there is a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher (like every year), but this time she is a nightmare. Her name is Dolores Umbridge, and her greatest pleasure in life is to make up more rules for the students to follow. Thus, the students' hands are tied over and over again. Meanwhile, Harry and his close friends know that Voldemort is back, but no one else believes him. So Harry, Ron, Hermoine and others realize they need to learn defensive skills to fight against the Death Eaters (bad guys). Since Umbridge has turned Defense Against the Dark Arts into pure theory, the students are not learning basic self-defense. Thus, they form Dumbledore's Army, which is a secret "club" which meets to learn the secrets they are not getting in class. I couldn't help but see a parallel between Dumbledore's Army (DA) and the disciples during the first years of the church. Both needed to sneak around the authority who was preventing the students/disciples from doing what was right. Both were fighting for their right to do things that they saw as much more important than every day life, things which the establishment had deemed wrong and immoral. We are intrigued by the figure of the righteous rebel.
Another aspect of the Potter franchise that impresses me is its use of younger people. The kids in the films/books are the main characters, the most impressive movers and shakers if you will. It reminds us that young people have incredibly important roles to play, even while they are maturing. When I was their age I had a desire to change the world, as do the Hogwarts students. And I work with kids every day that are the same age. My students have a role to play in God's mission, not just when they grow up and become "better and more mature" Christians, but also right now! God works through all kinds of people, and we don't have to wait until we are a finished product (whatever that means) to jump in.
Order of the Phoenix also places a gigantic spotlight on the war between good and evil that has, up until this point in the series, been going on behind the scenes. As so many films do so well, Potter awakens us to the spiritual battle that rages on throughout every hour of every day. We must not be so naive to think that humans can just ignore it, not take a side, not decide to follow good or evil. There is right and wrong.
Order of the Phoenix delivers just as well as any of the other Potter films. It recreates an imaginative world of adventure that completely engrosses the audience. The adaptation cannot include everything, but the filmmakers capture the spirit of the books very well. Another great addition to the Potter library.