redemptio en membrana

Top 60 Films of the Decade

2009-12-31T14:58:00.032-07:00

Why 60? Well, I don't really know. And yes, it has been so long since I have written here I wonder if anyone will read this. Nonetheless, I like lists way too much to resist this post.

I have been pondering my list of the best films of the decade for a while now, and it may just be complete. I still have a few '09 films yet to see, but am not too excited about any of them. I have seen so many lists pop up on the internet that I have to throw my hat in and pretend like people care about mine. I would love to hear anyone else's opinions of the best of the decade as well. It's funny how opinions change over time. One year a film could be your favorite, and 3 years later you are not that impressed by it (which happened a lot for me). Other films have grown better with time. Movies change as we change. I also wanted to make sure to include all types of films, especially the ones I usually leave out of "best of" lists like comedies. Why can't a movie like The Hangover get on a list like this?

So, anyway, here we are, the films that changed me:

60. Pan's Labyrinth
59. 25th Hour
58. Match Point
57. Monsters, Inc.
56. Brokeback Mountain
55. Borat
54. Memento
53. The King of Kong
52. Man on Wire
51. The Incredibles
50. Batman Begins
49. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
48. The Constant Gardener
47. Lost in Translation
46. Hero
45. Knocked Up
44. The Darjeeling Limited
43. Syriana
42. Hotel Rwanda
41. Spirited Away
40. Finding Forrester
39. The Fountain
38. Almost Famous
37. Shaun of the Dead
36. Inglourious Basterds
35. Gran Torino
34. Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut
33. Sunshine
32. The New World
31. The Motorcycle Diaries
30. District 9
29. Zodiac
28. Road to Perdition
27. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
26. Lady in the Water
25. Lars and the Real Girl
24. Gone Baby Gone
23. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
22. Synechdoche, New York
21. Grizzly Man
20. The Hurt Locker
19. The Village
18. Flags of our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima
17. Ocean's 11
16. City of God
15. The Hangover
14. Mystic River
13. Unbreakable
12. Anchorman
11. Black Hawk Down

and the top ten.................

10. Ratatouille

9. The Departed

8. Traffic

7. The Dark Knight

6. Munich

5. About Schmidt

4. The Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum

3. No Country for Old Men

2. There Will Be Blood

1. Children of Men

And a few other awards I would like to add for the heck of it. The directorial achievement goes to Clint Eastwood, the acting award go to Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Top Ten 2008

2009-06-07T11:03:00.031-06:00

Greetings. It has been far too long since I have written about any films. I have seen a few really great movies lately, and a lot of not so great ones. That being said, I felt it was finally time to put out my list of the best films of last year, only 6 months late. So here we go. These were the films that moved me, taught me how to see the world, and showed me truth and redemption. Or just made me laugh my butt off. It's not 10, it's 15, I can count, don't worry.

15. Traitor

14. Pineapple Express

13. Frost/Nixon

12. Man On Wire

11. Wall-E

10. Frozen River

9. Revolutionary Road

8. Blindness

7. Rachel Getting Married

6. The Wrestler

5. Doubt

4. Gran Torino

3. Slumdog Millionaire

2. Synechdoche, New York

1. The Dark Knight

Ta Da. Overall, not a great year, but not a slouch either. A solid year for great films.

Seven Pounds

2009-04-27T10:11:00.003-06:00

Seven Pounds (Will Smith) follows the life of Ben Thomas, an IRS auditer who seems to enjoy stalking and judging people. Who is Ben Thomas, and why is he doing this? The film is filled with mystery. First we see Ben chewing out a blind steak salesman for being an overly nice virgin. Then we see him slam a nursing home manager's head into a window for not giving a dying lady a bath to get her to take her pills. Then we see him meet his best friend and remind him to fulfill his promise. What the heck is going on? We are left to wonder.

Ben believes that he has the power to change people's lives for the better. He acts like a mysterious angel, trying to decide who he is going to bless and who he is going to judge. Does any of us have the right to do that? Should we make decisions like that? Should these decisions be made completely impartially? What happens if you fall in love with someone you are trying to judge? Your opinion may change by the end of the film.

One aspect of the film that stuck out to me visually is the jellyfish. Early in the film we hear of Ben's childhood, and how he was told that the box jellyfish was the most dangerous animal in the world. Yet its beauty is astounding. The juxtaposition of the two drives the meaning of the film.

Seven Pounds was a beautiful story of....well, I don't want to ruin it. It makes it hard to write a review on a film whose meaning is completely tied up in the suprise ending. Let's just say that it was very enjoyable, beautifully done, and emotionally powerful without being cheesy.

Oscars 2009

2009-02-23T09:24:00.002-07:00

The Oscars last night were very entertaining to watch. I hope all you film fans got a chance to see it. I loved it. It wasn't boring, it was creative, fun, and only had a few totally lame parts (like Bill Maher telling us our "little gods" were ruining the world, thanks Bill). And of course the right film won. There were a few surprises, like foreign film, but for the most part very predictable. Hooray for the Oscars!

The Wrestler

2009-01-29T11:57:00.002-07:00

Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler is about two people who are used by society as pieces of meat. But their bodies are wearing out, they are getting old, and in their professions (pro wrestling and stripping) you are too old very quickly.

Mickey Rourke plays Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a former WWF-style wrestler, one of the most popular and revered. He is now reduced to doing signings for the few random fans that might come to memorobilia shows, and doing really small reunion wrestling bouts. He is much past his prime, and works as a grocery store stocker during the week. And yes, he needs many many drugs to keep doing what he is doing, even for the measly sums he gets for wrestling now. Those drugs, including many steroids, as well as his body getting older, have lead to a heart attack. His doctor says he cannot wrestle anymore. What can he do now? He doesn't know anything else. He is poor and alone. His daughter doesn't want to be in his life because he wasn't when she was growing up. He has nothing. Except... his favorite stripper Cassidy (Marisa Tomei).

Cassidy is much like The Ram. She is getting old, and her body doesn't look as great as it used to. She is trying to raise a son all by herself, and she is starting to make quite a bit less money. Randy tries to see her outside the club, which is forbidden, and she wants nothing to do with that. Yet sometimes she does. They are both lonely, they both are losing everything they know, their livelihood, and they start to see that they may want each other.

One scene that stuck with me was when Randy invites a local kid over to play NES Wrestling, from the eighties. He is one of the characters, which is pretty cool for him and the neighborhood kids. They play, but then the kid leaves, says he wants to play Call of Duty 4, "it's pretty fun." That game came out last year, and is at the complete and utter opposite end of the video game spectrum in terms of quality, graphics, technology, etc. The film is almost a love song to the 80's, it feels like the 80's, but takes place now. It is the 80's after too many all-night benders. It is old, pathetic, endearing, and sad.

The ending of the film encapulates the whole movie, but I won't give it away. It shows the desperation, confusion, purpose, and loneliness of Randy. Every man needs a reason to get up in the morning, a purpose, a use in this life. This is one of the most prominent themes in film these days, and this could very well be one of the best.

Mickey Rourke deserves all the acclaim he is receiving, as well as the Oscar he will most likely win. He lives his performance because this film parellels his own life. He does many of the stunts himself (including cutting himself with a small razor in a match). It is a noble, gutsy, vulnerable, tragic, endearing and tremendous performance. This film is worth it for that reason alone. Yet, the story takes it to another level. It could even be a modern parable of our instant gratification society, and our desire for everything new, fit, clean, and strong. What happens after?

Doubt

2009-01-27T12:56:00.007-07:00

Doubt is an award-winning play that has been brought to the screen and directed by its writer John Patrick Shanley, something incredibly rare, quite an accomplishment. There is no doubt that the filmmaker got the writer's vision right, they are one in the same.

Doubt stars the two greatest living American actors, Meryl Streep, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, along with the wonderful Amy Adams, and newcomer Viola Davis. Each of these four have received Oscar nods for the film, by the way.

The film is a back and forth between Sister Aloysius (Streep) and Father Flynn (Hoffman), two workers at a Catholic church slash school. Sister Aloysius suspects Father Flynn of doing something inappropriate with an alter boy, as cliche as that sounds. They have many differences of opinion, as this is 1964 and things are beginning to change in this country. Sister Aloysius is all about tradition, discipline, and following the letter of the law. She wants to do the right thing, no matter what, and wants to punish wrongdoers. Father Flynn is all about embracing the change that is coming, focusing on compassion and kindness over justice and law. He wants to focus on love. Each of these ideas is important to God and His Church. How can you favor one over the other, should you, or can you do both?

Sister Aloysius had something against Father Flynn from the start, and has now found something that she can apparently use against him. Did he do that to this boy (who happens to be the only black kid in the school by the way)? Or is she merely conducting a witch hunt? In pursuing righteousness and condemning sin, do we draw closer to God, or are we drawn away from Him, trying instead to play God ourselves?

One powerful symbol in the film is wind. Sister Aloysius hates the wind, it is always causing things to get messed up and scattered. It causes pain (hurts one of the blind sisters) and is getting worse than it ever has. Father Flynn likes the wind, and sees it as something that brings good change. He keeps flowers in his Bible to remind him of spring, and spring only comes after the wind. Wind is a symbol for change. Is change good or bad for Christianity? If we change does that mean that truth changes? Doesn't that mean we didn't have it right before? Or do certain things need to change, even though God is unchanging? What should we change, if anything? It is a beautiful, stark symbol throughout the film.

Sister James (Adams) is an interesting character as well. She is the one we as an audience identify with the most. She is caught in the middle, trying to figure things out on her own, learning what it is like to follow God, to be a nun, and to deal with faith and doubt.

One thing I love about Doubt is its ability to take our stereotypes (overbearing nun, child-molester priest) and understand investigate that. There are real motivations behind these people, and maybe sometimes our stereotypes are completely wrong. *Spoiler Warning* I just have to talk about the ending and what I think it means. It is left inconclusive as to what actually happens and what the truth was. I love when films do that. But here is my theory. Father Flynn is gay, but he does not act out on it. He identifies with Donald Miller, the kid in question, because he is gay too. Therefore, Father Flynn wants to protect Donald, because he knows what it's like. That is also why he was scared Sister Aloysius knew something about his old post, him being gay. Yet, if he doesn't act out on it there is nothing wrong, There are many allusions to it throughout the movie (his fingernails, talk with boys about dances, sermons about tolerance, etc.). Just a theory. So Sister Aloysius was right that something was "wrong" with the Father, but didn't know the full extent, which is never fully divulged. There is my theory. The closing scene with the Sister is absolutely suprising and jarring, she finally lets her guard down and becomes real and shares her struggles and doubts. Meryl Streep is amazing.

Doubt is a beautifully written drama of morality, truth, compassion and judgment. It is perfectly acted and wonderfully shot, with an aura of depression but a light and hope hiding underneath.

Oscar Predictions 2008 and why I'm mad

2009-01-22T19:48:00.004-07:00

Some years the Oscars get it right on, which has pretty much been the case the last three years in my opinion (which is always right). This year was the year they got it all wrong.

The best movie of the year is also the most popular, The Dark Knight. And the Oscars refuse to recognize a "super hero" movie and instead go with the same exact movies that they have always been drawn to, outside of the fantastic Slumdog Millionaire. The omission of The Dark Knight may go down as the worst Oscar snub ever. In addition, I can think of so many movies that were far more deserving than Milk (derivative biopic with beat-you-over-the-head political agenda) The Reader (obligatory holocaust movie) and Benjamin Button (bland crap). The nominees should have gone like this:

Slumdog Millionaire
The Dark Knight
Gran Torino
Revolutionary Road
The Wrestler or Wall-E or Frost/Nixon (the other one that at least sort of deserves to be there)

But we can't always get what we want. That is what the Oscars is all about, arguing your opinions. I have to play with the cards I have been dealt though, so here are my predictions:

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire (should win)
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke (should win)
Best Actress: Kate Winslett (should win for Rev. Road, but haven't seen Reader yet)
Best Director: Danny Boyle (yeah!)
Best Supp. Actor: Heath (should win)
Best Supp. Actress: Amy Adams

And my two favorite categories are Best Original Screenplay, which will be Milk, but should be Wall-E, and Cinematography which will be The Dark Knight, but too little too late.

Okay, let the arguing begin.

Revolutionary Road

2009-01-17T11:28:00.002-07:00

Kate and Leo back together again, but if you are looking for Titanic 2, you've come to the wrong place, thankfully.

Sam Mendes (Road to Perdition, American Beauty, Jarhead) directs this adaptation of the classic William Yates novel of the same name. It is the story of a couple, April and Frank Wheeler, and their journey in 1950's suburbia. It is a story of dreams, both broken and realized. A story of love and betrayal. A story of pain and more pain, and how people learn to live with society's assumptions and realities.

Frank and April meet when they are both young, ambitious, exciting, and adventurous. But they buy in to the new suburban ideal, if "only for a while." So they move out of the city, have kids, Frank gets a job he hates, April stays home, etc. etc. etc. They had originally decided they would only do this for a while, then "truly live." Their ideal is Paris, a city where "people really live." April finally decides that they need to actually live their dream, and Frank agrees, so they start telling people that they are going to up and move to France. They have two kids, but then April gets pregnant and this could spoil their plans, or not. Then Frank gets a promotion, is offered more money, and this could ruin their plans, or not. The rest of the story is where it gets interesting.

Each of these characters is buying in to this distant vision of greener pastures somewhere else, where people are truly alive, this ideal that cannot truly be grasped. But they are also struggling with this suburban ideal. They are torn between the two. The true answer to their problem of discontentment is to see the value they have around them, their kids, their marriage, and ultimately God (who they think is just a part of the suburban thing instead of a real being to have a relationship with). They are looking for something to satisfy them, each in different ways. They are looking in all the wrong places, as cliche as it sounds. And this starts to spiral out of control.

Revolutionary Road is also a great study of the struggles of marriage, and how those relationships fail. It is a painful thing to watch. They both feel trapped by this suburban thing, this boring life, and see marriage as a part of that. April especially wants to do anything to get out, she feels trapped, and she doesn't care who she hurts. She is the most heartwrenching example of a passive-aggresive home-wrecker I can remember. The home she wants to wreck is her own.

The irony of the film is that the only one who is not afraid to speak the truth about reality, about the way things really are, is labeled insane and sent to a mental health facility. He is only let out for a hour at a time to visit his family and friends. His name is John, and every scene that John appears in is a breath of fresh air, a welcome break from the charade. Thank God for someone who doesn't care about the social mores.

In the end Revolutionary Road is a beautifully written story of discontentment, and our search for love. The cinematography is pitch-perfect, along with the acting (in my humble opinion, we get career best performances from both Kate and Leo in this one. Kate is especially fantastic, and I hope she gets a little golden statue). And it all builds to an apropo conclusion, one that can be seen a mile away, but cannot be averted.

What are we taking our stock in, what is our fantasy? Suburbia? Paris? Security? Adventure? What should it be?

Gran Torino

2009-01-03T09:40:00.004-07:00

There are rumors this will be Clint's last acting job, and if it is, I am completely satisfied. Yes, I would love to see this American great on screen again, but Gran Torino is a pitch-perfect ending to his career.

Clint also directs this picture, about a racist grumpy old man who gets thrown into the drama of his foreign neighbors' lives. We start with Walt Kowalski (Eastwood), a retired man who has just lost his wife, is completely disconnected from his annoyingly selfish kids, and lives in an older neighborhood that has been "overrun with Asians." He is almost the only white person left in his section of town, but he won't leave, he will just whine. He tells things like he sees them, which is very refreshing, even if we as the audience are appalled at what he says. He used to work on the line at the Ford factory for 50 years. This career included the highlight of putting the steering column in his '72 Gran Torino. But one fateful night Kowalski is forced to defend his dreaded next door neighbors, the Lors, who are Hmong (from Southeast Asia). The are being threatened by the Hmong gang, who is trying to recruit the Lors' son Thao (who Kowalski calls Toad). The gang ends up on Walt's lawn, which is bad, and Walt comes out with a gun and says "get of my lawn." Inadvertently, Kowalski has saved Thao for the time being, which is not really what Walt was intending He just wants to be left alone.

The rest of the film watches the interplay between the crotchety old white man and his Hmong neighbors. A friendship and respect grows, but it feels authentic, unlike most films. Walt doesn't stop with the racial slurs or revert to social niceties. He isn't afraid to speak his mind, especially about other people. And the fact is, sometimes that can be a very good thing (it is for Thao). Walt becomes a father figure to the fatherless Thao and eventually makes some pretty big decisions in his and his family's favor. He intervenes because he knows it is right, and he is old fashioned, he does what is right because it is right.

Walt is an admirable man, an old school man's man. He has flaws, he is very prejudiced and xenophobic. He judges people all the time. But he has no fear. He isn't caught up in being nice or polite (which is a common criticism of Christians). His interactions with people are authentic, he doens't take crap from anyone, and he has lived too long and seen to much to lie to himself or others. He has nothing to prove to anyone, he knows who he is.

The film is also quite hilarious and endearing (oh, I hate that term when it comes to movies, but here it fits). It is a searing character study of old school America and the changes that have happened and are happening in our society. It investigates right and wrong while transcending cultural lines, awkwardly at times. This is a nearly perfect film, and Clint succeeds again. Can he go wrong anymore? He even wrote an original song to end the film.

I don't want to give away the ending, but let's just say it is a fitting end to the film and possibly to one of the greatest acting careers of all-time, the ultimate man's man. Most all of Clints films (both acting and directing) deal with the myth of redemptive violence. Sometimes they buy in, and sometimes they don't. The climax of the film could not make a stronger statement in this regard. The very definition of strength, courage, and honor. Thank you again Mr. Eastwood.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-01T11:32:00.005-07:00

Sometimes I find a movie that is pretty good, but not great. But so many other people are falling all over themselves in adoration for it. This makes me like the movie less, if only to spite other peoples' misplaced praise. Babel was like that two years ago, and Benjamin Button is that film for me this year.

Button is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, but must have been changed quite a bit to fit our modern times. It was adapted for the screen by Eric Roth, who is also responsible for the most overrated film of all-time, Forrest Gump. David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) directs the film, which stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. The story centers around Benjamin, a man born old who ages backwards, a very intriguing premise.

So what does it mean to be human? That is the essence of this film. Does the direction we age make us human, and if that changes, how do we change? If our body ages backward, does our mind? What about experience? How will people treat someone who looks old but acts young, and vise versa. What about age discrimination? What about love? What about romantic love, how would that work if you we so much older/younger than someone, yet the "same age." These are all great questions that the film delves into. In essence, Button examines the human condition.

The film is beautifully shot, with sort of a bleak undertone. The colors are beautiful and the feel fits the story well. The cinematography is great, the acting is nearly flawless in every regard, and the directing is fantastic. Yet the film doesn't grab the audience the way it should, and it all comes down to the writing. It felt like Forrest Gump 2. The story was cheesy, predictable and uninspired, truly tragic for a film that had so much potential.

Slumdog Millionaire

2008-11-17T10:46:00.003-07:00

I had the opportunity to see this film at the Denver Film Festival this saturday. For those of you that live in the Denver area, I highly recommend the festival. This film was shown at the Ellie Caulkins Opera House downtown. It is a unique experience in and of itself.

The film takes place in Mumbai, a gigantic, sprawling metroplex in India. The main character, Jamal Malik, has grown up a "slumdog," a very poor orphan in a large city. The details of his life are rather horrific. When he is older he somehow falls into being on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" He ends up winning a whole lot of money, but the authorities think he must have cheated. How could a slumdog know all these questions? The prejudice is pretty blatant.

British director Danny Boyle (Sunshine, 28 Days Later, Millions) brings us this modern day fairy-tale about love, fate, knowledge, and sacrifice. The storytelling device Boyle uses is brilliant. Jamal's past unfolds to us through the questions of the game show. We learn about how and why Jamal knows the answers. And we are confronted with the question of why Jamal knows the answers. Is it luck? Brilliance? Cheating? Or Fate? This is the central question to the film. And this forces us to confront our own views on life and what we believe about our future. In addition, the love story parallel is quite beautiful and touching, in a non-cheesy way (I have my "cheese-radar" on pretty high most of the time).

The cultural aspect of the film, and India itself, is enlightening. It helped me understand India from more of a first-person perspective (at least that one slice of India, Mumbai's slums). I was a little worried we would get some Bollywood crap, but that didn't happen until the credits (which was pretty obnoxious, but wasn't really part of the movie). The music was fantastic and added quite a bit to the story, especially the multitue of paralleling chase scenes. It seemed like Jamal was always running away, or running toward, something.

Slumdog Millionaire is a beautiful story, told in a unique and powerful way. It does help us to understand what makes us human, what makes us love. It confronts us with ideas of fate and intelligence. It looks beautiful. This film has been getting a boatload of Oscar buzz, and it is all well-deserved. When it is released here in Denver I encourage everyone to go experience this journey into a modern day fairy-tale.

Changeling

2008-11-05T12:55:00.003-07:00

Master Clint Eastwood has another year with two major releases back to back (this film, and Gran Torino in December). Changeling stars Angelina Jolie as a single mother (Christine Collins) who loses her son. He is abducted in 1928 Los Angeles. Five months later Collins is told her boy was found. Yet she does not recognize this boy. What is going on? Is she crazy or are the police trying to cover up their ineptitude? This is a story of one parent's long, hard struggle with the realities of a harsh world.

This film is a gut-wrencher for parents especially, manifesting all of our worst fears. How would I cope with the disappearance of my son? I don't even want to think about it.

One thing that stuck out to me about the film is the character of Reverend Gustav Briegleb. He is a Presbyterian pastor who is fighting for justice against the oppression and corruption of the LAPD. The mixing of politics and religion is a great topic, especially now in the wake of the election. We as Christians should always fight for justice and truth, and here you have a spiritual leader willing to do that. Yet, he is not always perfect and does not always have perfect intentions. Yet he is a good man, and tries to bring about the things of God through his actions (reminding me of Karl Malden's character in On the Waterfront).

As with my last reviewed film, Blindness, Changeling has a wonderfully complex lead role for a woman, played fantastically by Angelina. So often female leads are one dimentional and stereotypical. Here you have a single mother with the strength to keep fighting and the hope that her son is alright. She loves deeply, yet struggles mightily against others and herself. The film is beautifully shot, with a grayish tint that helps add to the time-period. As a period piece in and of itself the detail is unfailing. The chilling journey that we take with Collins is one that will stick with us for a long time to come. Is it even possible for Clint to make a bad movie anymore?

Blindness

2008-10-09T10:42:00.004-06:00

Fernando Mereilles (maker of two excellent films: City of God and The Constant Gardener) directs Blindness, a distopian tale of a mega-virus that blinds everyone in the world, except one woman. Julianne Moore plays the Doctor's wife, the only person not stricken with this disease. The Doctor (Mark Ruffalo) is an optometrist who sees a patient who has been struck blind, but not like normal blindness. Instead of black, he sees white all the time. This virus is then passed on to others, and pretty soon they are quarantined. It keeps spreading and spreading, no matter what the government does to contain it.

First of all, the film is fantastically shot. As has been his style, Mereilles over saturates his cinematography, in this case with white. This style obviously adds to our experience of the characters' blindness. Other techniques are used effectively to add to our experience as well, such as blurriness, and lack of clarity/light.

What are people really like? Would we let down our walls and see the truth of ourselves and each other if none of us relied on our vision anymore. It seems as though we can truly see what humanity is when they are struck blind (that is called irony). Before the blindness epidemic we see people do some things, good and bad, but we understand from a Christian perspective that they are all sinners. Yet when the blindness hits people are almost driven to be animals, their instincts take over. Without society to keep them in check, humanity's evils are given free reign to take over. People now feel allowed to do heinous things to each other. One scene in particular is appallingly brutal. I won't spoil it but I do want to warn anyone considering seeing this film. Food has become scarce in the quarantined area. One ward has control over the food and exploits the others because of that. When other wards run out of money or valuables the oppressors come up with another plan: send us your women. The men act like cowards on one side, and pigs on the other. I cannot emphasize enough how disgusting we as humans can act towards each other when we think we have no accountability, no one to "keep an eye on us." The best definition I have heard for integrity is "Who you are in the dark." This film visually expounds upon that idea, especially during the scene in question.

Near the end of the film an old wise man with a black eye patch (Danny Glover) talks about how he knows everyone in their little group very well, even though he doesn't know their names (no names are used in the film). He believes that without superficials to rely on, like names or even appearance, it is easier to truly know someone. I guess that is how God sees us, for who we really are. Yet He knows our names, or maybe more accurately He knows what name truly says who we are. We see this over and over again in Scripture when name are changed by God (ex. Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Saul/Paul).

Speaking of Paul, that reminds me of another scene in the film that leaped out. At one point we see a character enter a church. All the paintings and statues, the icons, are blindfolded. There is a priest preaching, and you can hear him faintly in the background. His subject is Paul's conversion. In that story Paul was saved by Jesus, then struck blind. He needed to go into town to be healed of his blindness. This sermon further illustrates the point that maybe only through blindness can we truly "see" (ie. The Matrix, right Jim?). Because when our sight is taken from us we can truly focus on what is important, at least hypothetically.

The Doctor's Wife plays a very strong savior role in the film. She volunteers to go with her husband and all the other blind people into the quarantine even though she can see. She risks getting the disease, as well as being basically imprisoned. Her sight is a huge advantage in the quarantine though, and she uses that gift to help others. She becomes a leader, though a silent one, and a great servant. Her courage, strength and compassion are what get her and her husband, as well as many others, through many gut-wrenching times. This character is one of the best female lead roles I have seen in a long time. Not only is it a great performance, but also fantastically written. The character is immensely complicated, incredibly good, yet flawed. She plays a Christ-like role in so many lives, and is an inspiration to others. Too often in films either those roles go to men, or those roles played by women can only be really appreciated by a woman, and men feel like outsiders. I am a man, and was enthralled by this character's ability to lead and to serve. In a normally shallow pool of female lead roles, this one shines.

Blindness is a journey into a blinding hell where all the rules and comforts of everyday life are thrown out the window. It has disturbing moments, as well as experiences of profound beauty. It even has an international flavor, a la Babel or Lost. I cannot understand why more critics have not embraced this film. Blindness has been a moment of clarity and truth in an otherwise bland year of film thus far. I loved it.

Righteous Kill

2008-09-30T12:04:00.004-06:00

We finally have DeNiro and Pacino in a film together again (Heat was the first and only in which they appeared on screen together). Righteous Kill follows the story of two detectives who are on the trail of a killer who is whacking "bad people." Usually the killer finds someone who just got acquitted for a horrible crime because of faulty evidence but should be behind bars. We all secretly, or openly, have a deisre for justice to be done to the people who are ruining others' lives. This is a well worn idea in Hollywood especially, where all our fantasies are played out (think Boondock Saints, or The Brave One).

We all know that some people just "deserve to die." And maybe at first glance they do, but we must be very careful about are presuppositions. When we decide who lives and dies, we play God. We have to realize that. The Bible says "Vengeance is mine, says the LORD." We must trust Him to be the one that will handle justice, and handle it perfectly. We have to find solace in that. Yet it is hard when people are doing really horrible things to each other. [As I am writing this I am almost sure I have written the exact same thing in a few other blogs. Definitely one of Hollywood's favorite fantasies to play on].

Righteous Kill is a pretty straight-forward crime drama. It's got guns, good guys, bad guys, mysetry, twists and turns, clues, etc. And it has two of the master-actors on the planet. It was enjoyable. Yet, it left a lot to be desired. I guess with a cast like that I was expecting a lot more. It was predicable in many places as well. If you are really itching to see Bobby and Al together, I do highly recommend Heat. And if you are in the mood to maybe feel what it's like to be the "hand of God's judgment" (which is pretty arrogant, really) and delve into what that actually means, you may want to check out Boondock Saints or even Se7en instead.

Traitor

2008-09-05T17:17:00.003-06:00

Denver's own Don Cheadle stars in Traitor, a film about terrorism and Islam. Cheadle plays Samir Horn, a Sudanese man who has moved around a lot in life. He has lately found himself with some rather unsavory people in Yemen. He ends up being recruited by terrorists as a bomber (he's quite adept with his hands). Meanwhile, the U.S. is investigating a threat. After a few bombings by this cell in Europe, the FBI (including Guy Pierce) gets intel that points to America as the next target.

Traitor puts the debate about Islam front and center. I have to admit I wish I knew more about Islam. I have studied it, but have not as yet read the Qur'an for myself. Some people believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Obviously that is not true. We shouldn't generalize. Yet, there are some passages in their scripture that could definitely be interpreted as hostile and violent. But couldn't we interpret some of our own Scripture for bad purposes too (to justify slavery, for example?) So where do we draw the line in terms of what a holy book says? This film made me want to learn more because it has "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" who come into conflict. In order to understand our world's political situations, we have to understand Islam. We have to look at Muslims as human beings, created by God, looking for truth, looking for a being to honor and respect. We cannot continue to look on them as psychos. And we as Christians must also get to the point where we can understand someone and still be alright with disagreeing with them.

Another thought that has been stewing in my head centers around humiliation. I believe that humiliation is the most dangerous human emotion. Many terrorists have been humiliated by the Western world. Humiliation takes away human dignity and respect, and leaves a man desperate, with nothing to lose. We have to be careful with this emotion, and try to never let this be the result of our own actions. Also, we must be careful not to fall into this trap when we ourselves have been slighted. The answer for this, as with many things in life, is to remember who God says we are (as opposed to who others say we are).

This film succeeded through a very well written plot with quite a few great twists. It is both exciting and intellectual interesting. It is entertaining, while still presenting us with great questions to ask. It helps us learn to not judge the proverbial book by the cover. The tagline sums up the film well: "The truth is complicated." Indeed. Not only in regards to this specific tale of terror and fear, but also in regards to the subjects (Islam and terrorism) as a whole. We cannot continue to see these issues so simply.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-20T19:12:00.006-06:00

Holy Crap.

The Dark Knight is not a great "comic book movie," this is just a flat out great film. It felt more like a crime drama than a super-hero film. And it probably should have been rated R. Christian Bale is back as Batman, in Christopher Nolan's second helming of the franchise. And as everyone knows, the late Heath Ledger plays the Joker (uber-creepy performance, which should win him an Oscar, aside from the fact that he is gone). We also have Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman back. Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes this time around, and we have Aaron Eckhart as the brash and idealistic new DA Harvey Dent. Bruce Wayne has been trying to hit Gotham's criminals where it hurts, financially. Thus, he has been taking out all the money launderers. He is getting pretty good at it. The new DA, Dent, has been putting his share of criminals away as well. It is not a good time to be on the wrong side of the law in Gotham. Then this Joker guy appears. He takes the mob's money, then tells them to pay him to kill Batman. And the game is afoot.

Ledger's Joker has to be one of the most fascinating villains of all-time. He is an animal, a dog who was let off the chain. His goal is anarchy. How do you understand a criminal who doesn't care about getting paid? We aren't given much background or any explanation as to why he is this way. Sometimes in this fallen world we are merely faced with unexplainable evil. So what can we do to stop those kind of people. At one point in the film Alfred relates a story of catching a thief who cared nothing about the jewels he stole. Bruce asks the question we all would, how do you catch a guy like that? Alfred's answer: "burn down the forest." To what lengths will we go to stop evil? What will we destroy along the way? Is it worth it? In stopping evil, what do we as "good guys" become? Evil ourselves? This question haunted Batman throughout the film. He was confronted with becoming something terrifying himself, and struggled with whether that was worth it. He also faced the fact that there were consequences that others would have to face through his choices. What would you do? What would Jesus do (the ever so popular question)? What should Batman do, to what depths should he stoop, to stop pure unabashed evil?

So let us examine this evil, this Joker. The Joker likes to turn people into something else, and in so doing prove that all men have evil inside, that all are fallen. Thus he gives people choices. One such choice was given to Batman. Joker was killing people, and stated that unless Batman turned himself in and revealed his identity, people would continue to die. Should Batman give in to a terrorist's demands? At one point in the film Batman is also faced with a decision, who should he save? Two people are strapped to explosives at different locations, and he only has time to save one. In effect, he is killing the other. How can he make that decision? Joker gives the every day person choices too. There is a mind-blowing scene in which two ferries are stuck in the middle of the river, each rigged to blow. Each vessel is given a trigger, and told that they must blow up the other boat before it blows them up, otherwise Joker will blow them both up. And oh yeah, one of them is filled with convicts. I won't give it away, but what a great scene! (In a great turn of events, we actually see people changed for the better instead of into the worse, as Joker would intend. Glimmers of redemption). Joker presents these choices to people to prove that even the best can be turned into the worst. This happens to one central character, creating another profound question: Should this public figure's perfect reputation be kept in tact to inspire people, even if it is a complete fabrication? Do we need a White Knight to inspire us all as common folk to do good in a bad world? And this White Knight contrasts sharply with the Dark Knight. What is the Dark Knight (besides being Batman)? He is the one who has a bad reputation, is seen as a vigilante. He is the one that goes outside the law to get things done. He is behind the scenes doing things (bad? at least shades of gray) in order to get good things done (for example, spying on 30 million people to find the Joker - hello Patriot Act). He is self-sacrificial in more ways than one. Is he what we need, the necessary hero for a fallen world?

The Joker had dogs with him throughout the film, further driving home the point that he represents our baser animal side. We are all torn between two people, between our flesh and our spirit. Joker is quite clear where he stands. Where do we stand? The Joker sees that we can all be controlled by our emotions, anger/rage/revenge/etc. Feelings are feelings, but when we choose to react in a negative way to those feelings, we are quickly sent down the path of bad decisions. We become animals. Yes Joker, we do have a dark side. We truly live in a fallen world, externally and internally.

Chance and Choice were juxtaposed in this film. Chance played a role in Harvey Dent's character. He made decisions by flipping a coin. He believed that chance was the only way to make fair decisions. What does that say about our world? Apparently in his mind, this place is so messed up that justice is a myth. There is no way to make things fair, it is all chaos, anarchy. Is that true? Is it really that bad?

The Dark Knight surpasses every other "super-hero" movie ever made, indeed it transcends the genre itself. I would not be surprised if this film gets a nomination for Best Picture, it is that good. The performances are stunning, especially Ledger. The themes are strong. Many times in film we have things shoved down our throat, the messages too obvious. There is no art to the delivery. Other times, the themes are shrouded with mystery, taking many viewings to unpack. I felt that this film laid it all out there, but in a perfect way. The themes were masterfully woven together. Also, near the end of blockbuster films, I get bored. Seriously, a whole bunch of movies needed to end half and hour before they did. The Dark Knight kept going, and I didn't want to get off the ride. It almost felt like two movies back to back. This film was beautifully directed, nearly flawless in every way. Truly a masterpiece. This is a watershed film going experience, turning "kid's stuff" into art.

In Bruges

2008-07-12T12:08:00.003-06:00

In Bruges stars my look-a-like, Colin Farrell, along with Ray Feinnes and Brendan Gleeson. Farrell plays Ray, a killer who accidentally shot a boy during his first hit. So Ray's boss sends him and his colleague, Ken (Gleeson), to a small town in Belgium called Bruges, a very well preserved Medieval "wonderland." They are hiding out until things calm down and their boss Harry (Feinnes) figures out what to do.

The Medieval setting is quite apropos because the film centers around the idea of Purgatory. Purgatory, of course, is the Catholic idea of an in between after-life, one in which sinners can work off their sins and eventually enter into paradise (for further investigation, I highly recommend Dante's Purgatorio). Ray hates Bruges, he is stuck there and it's boring. Neither of these men can move on with their lives until Ray's sin of killing a child is worked off. But how should that happen?

*Spoiler warning* Harry decides that the best thing to do is have Ken kill Ray. So Ken is ready to go through with it but then sees Ray about to kill himself, and Ken has a conscience attack, stopping him. Ken now believes that Ray deserves a second chance. So Ken saves Ray and readies himself to face the wrath of Harry. Self-sacrifice becomes the means for Ray's possibility of redemption. But this sin must be worked off somehow before anyone can leave Bruges/Purgatory. Ray's salvation comes not at his own hands (working off his own sin) but at the sacrifice of another. Ken becomes Jesus figure and represents how we are truly saved. The idea of Purgatory is interesting and seems to make sense at first glance, but when compared to scripture it fails to impart the truth. Ephesians 2:8-9 states: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." In a way, Purgatory puts the responsibility on the sinner, not on the grace of God. We are completely and utterly unable to save ourselves in any way. Ray too was unable to save himself. He felt incredibly guilty for what he had done and decided that he deserved to die, and maybe he did. But he received a second chance, a new lease on life. He received redemption.

In Bruges does contain some strong religious undertones, yet at the same time it is a brutal dark comedy. It is quite funny at times, disturbing at others, and massively entertaining in that European kind of way. It is a journey of conscience, penance, and a life in between Heaven and Hell.

Wall-E

2008-06-28T14:28:00.006-06:00

Yes, I have a three year-old son, who joined me for this fine feature, but I am such a big fan of Pixar that I would have gone to see this "kids'" movie all by my lonesome if I needed to.

Wall-E is a robot whose job it is to clean up the trash we humans have left on the Earth. In fact, the waste is so great (reaching piles higher than skyscrapers) that humans have had to leave the planet for a while, until things get livable again. So, day in and day out, Wall-E takes our trash and makes it into cubes. Along the way he picks up relics of our human history, like sporks. One day a foreign ship lands on Earth and out comes a much more advanced robot, Eve. Eve is looking for any signs of life. She/it eventually finds a plant that Wall-E has been keeping, and that plant is whisked away into the ship. But cute, funny, innocent Wall-E has fallen in love with Eve. He is worried about her safety, and tags along, grabbing hold of the giant space ship. What we find when we reach our destination is all of humanity, floating around in space with machines to do everything for them. They all live in floating recliners, growing too fat to move on their own (because there is never any need). In an ironic twist, Wall-E is like a divine messenger sent to remind the humans of their humanity. Indeed, Wall-E has more humanity in him than do the humans themselves.

Everyone has heard the message before: "We consume too much, we need to conserve. We are killing our planet." And that message is finally starting to take hold. The repetition and continued rejection of this idea by our culture (and myself, for that matter) reminds me of a joke about a new Preacher in town. He got up one day, preached an excellent sermon, and the congregants congratulated him on such a great job. The very next week he took the pulpit and preached the exact same sermon. The crown was thinking "that was odd." This went on for several more weeks, until one day when a woman came up to the Preacher and said "Preacher, we think you are great, your sermon was excellent as always, but it has been the same sermon for six straight weeks. Can't you do anything else?" To which the Preacher replied "I have plenty more sermons, and will preach them just as soon as we all put this on into practice." We have all heard about conservation over and over again. And we all know that our consumption mentality is unhealthy and out of control. So when are we going to actually change? When are we going to treat Earth as God's beautiful creation, as a gift entrusted to us. We are its stewards, not its masters. When are we going to be content with what we have, instead of constantly wanting more and more, gluttons of money/things/etc? I believe are headed down the right road, both we as a human race and we as Christians. But we have only taken a few small steps. Let us continue to be reminded of these truths, that we might actually live them out some day.

Wall-E impresses the viewer on so many levels. Not only does it tell an exciting and original science-fiction story, it impresses truths on our hearts, dazzles the eyes and the ears, and makes us laugh quite often along the way. What a feat for a film with hardly any dialogue at all. Its profundity can be seen in small ways, such as a scene (left) in which Wall-E picks up a jewelery box with a diamond ring in it, tosses the ring away, and is fascinated by the hinge on the box. Oh how we store up treasures on this earth! Pixar does it time and time again. This is truly an original film that creates awe and wonder in its viewers, both young and old. I have come to expect nothing less than absolutely incredible films from the group of people that continue to turn out the greatest animated films of all-time.

The Happening

2008-06-14T17:20:00.002-06:00

I am about the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan one can possibly be. All his films are dear to me, and contain beauty and truth. Thus, I had astronomical expectations for The Happening.

Night's first R-rated film stars Marky Mark Wahlberg as Elliot Moore, a teacher (yeah) in Philadelphia (all of Night's films take place in or around there). He is married to Alma (Zooey Deschanel). One morning they are made aware of a strange happening, which may be a terrorist attack, in New York City. Everyone is dying of self-inflicted wounds (people jumping off buildings, stabbing themselves, shooting themselves, etc.). This is caused by a chemical reaction that affects the brain and causes it to reverse the human self-preservation urge. Philly is close to NYC so they flee the city, along with everyone else. But along the way more and more cities and smaller towns are being hit with this chemical. Thus, everyone is on the run.

Shyamalan has the uncanny ability to use strange/horrific/supernatural backdrops to say profound things about humanity. One such strand of thematic truth in The Happening has to do with relationships/marriage. At the beginning of the film Alma is having an emotional affair and Elliot is somewhat clueless. Later in the film she comes clean, thinking that her death is imminent (it is sad how much we keep hidden from each other until the last possible moment, when our only motivation for truth-telling is being spared the "fires of hell"). When the Moores are on the run, they eventually find their way to a crazy old lady's house. Yet, she gives them and us a little slice of profundity. She asks "Who's chasing who?" Yes, they are married, but someone is always chasing someone else in a relationship, at no time are two people at completely the same place. Interesting point, and I think it might be true. The interplay between these two, in regards to love and what it really means, is one of the highlights of this film.

Now on to the actually thing that happens. *spoiler warning* We first meet Elliot as he is explaining to his class the phenomenon of honey bees disappearing. They discuss why this might be happening, but eventually come to the conclusion that sometimes nature does things that we can't understand, it is outside of our knowledge. This mystery carries over to the "happening." There are a few clues though. One significant thing is that these "attacks" start occurring in parks. They slowly move to smaller places, towns, then villages, etc. Eventually the Moores meet up with the crazy hot dog guy, who has a theory that the plants are doing this. He says that plants cannot fight back when attacked, or run away. Therefore, the only defense mechanism they have is to secrete a chemical to kill its predators (like the red tide). The plants are apparently secreting this killer chemical in unison to kill off their predators, humans. This theory is later discussed, then possibly dismissed, at the end of the film. But the closing scene confirms it to be true. This theory brings up the question "Why are humans the predators?" We all know that we pollute. And now, depending on who you listen to, there is global warming. Humans no longer live in balance with nature, we take from it and destroy it. Preservation is merely an afterthought. And this aspect of humanity is getting worse (we are depleting the oil reserves, destroying animal habitat, etc.). The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that we don't usually think of plants as creations that have any personality or rights. It is pretty easy to get people to care about spotted owls, abandoned puppies, or humpback whales, but what about ferns or ficuses? And let's be honest, we don't want to save the rain forest for the rain forest's sake, but for our oxygen, etc. All of God's creation should be respected, and everything has the right to defend itself against destruction, right? It's a really creative idea, the planet fighting back against it's parasite. There are many clues hidden throughout the film to remind us of how we treat the planet and ourselves (nuclear smoke stacks, giant homes in the country with a sign that says "you deserve this," and a Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas under a TV, to name a few). Not only are we destroying everything else around us, we are also destroying ourselves as a species. This point is driven home by the fact that suicide, not murder, is the main symptom of the chemical weapon sent by the trees/grass/etc. I believe that this film is trying to make a comment about more that just Global Warming or the environment. It is saying "We are killing everything, including ourselves. We cannot live this way any longer."

M. Night Shyamalan is the epitome of creativity in Hollywood, he is one of the few that writes, produces and directs his own material. And The Happening is nothing if not unique. Yet, I found myself disappointed with the film for many reasons. First of all, it did not feel like a Night film. It lacked the thematic depth of his other films. Also, instead of being Hitchcockian and playing with our minds by not showing us something, here Shyamalan falls victim to the current Hollywood tendency to leave nothing to the imagination. His films are not horror films, they just use that as a background to say something much more important. Yet sometimes this felt like a B-Horror film (it could have been called Attack of the Killer Trees). The dialogue was campy, and I found myself thinking about how the next character was going to kill themselves, but maybe that's the point. Or maybe I'm stretching it. I don't know what to think about this movie. This did happen to be Night's funniest film to date though, especially the talking to the fake plant part and the pharmacist/cough syrup dialogue. Congrats to Night for doing whatever he wants in his movies, not bowing to the critics or the general public. Yet, I feel like now he has even alienated his hardcore fans, such as myself. My initial reaction to The Happening was extreme disappointment and anger. Maybe the film deserves a closer look. I find myself firmly up in the air.

Things We Lost in the Fire

2008-05-30T10:41:00.002-06:00

Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) has just lost her husband Brian (David Duchovny) , he was killed while helping someone on the street. In the midst of her grief she must reach out to tell Brian's best friend Jerry Sunborne (Benicio Del Toro). Jerry is a heroine addict, but Brian was a faithful friend through it all. Brian reached out to Jerry in friendship no matter what, even when Jerry was making no effort to get clean (see 1Cor. 13 for a more complete description of this commitment to someone else). Yet, this friendship had caused strain on the Burke's marriage. Audrey was jealous of Brian's time, maybe rightfully so.
But when Brian dies, Audrey and Jerry reach out to each other and help one another. Audrey lets Jerry move in to the garage and live with the family (they have two children, 6 and 10). The kids get understandably confused, thinking Jerry is there to replace their father.

Sometimes tragedies strike, and life is incredibly hard. We are left vulnerable, hurt, pained, and in need of the Healer of our souls. Everyone in this film was rocked by the loss of Brian. Stuffing down the hurt and pain would not help anyone. The film does a great job in investigating grief. Audrey had to hold it together for a while, for the sake of her kids and for continuing to move forward. But in her own time, she broke down in a healthy way. Grief must come out. Jerry dealt with the loss in his own way. He started going back to his Narcotics Anonymous meetings, which is a great picture of communal accountability, love, and support. He wanted to help out Brian's family, out of love and maybe out of repaying a debt. You see, Brian never gave up on his friend, and never put ultimatums on his love. We do that a lot, I know I have. We must figure out a way to love those around us no matter what they do. We have to encourage our friends in the right way, not enable them to continue to hurt themselves or those around us. But true love never fails. So let us strive for that delicate balance, but attempt to push forth (God-willing) with God's completely unconditional love.

One thing that stuck out to me was the healing process for Audrey. The themes in this film are ones of great importance to me lately, necessitated by my own life experiences. Audrey began to heal when she reached out to help others. Isaiah 58:9-12 says:

⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.

¹¹ The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.

¹² Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

God will satisfy us, strengthen our frame, restore us and heal us. But so often this can happen
by us spending ourselves on behalf of others, the poor, oppressed, hurting, disillusioned, etc. We heal by being a healing agent in others' lives. But we must always remember that ultimately, Jesus Himself is the Healer, the one to restore our lives from brokenness.

Things We Lost in the Fire is a fantastically acted picture of grief and healing, one that requires courage to delve in to. It is a depressing film, and so often those are the best kind.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-25T12:15:00.004-06:00

Indiana Jones films are the most entertaining movies in the history of mankind. How can you possibly have more fun watching something? That being said, it was a bold move by Spielberg and Lucas to bring back the franchise after 19 years (aside from the fact that they knew they would make more money than most small countries' GDP). Everyone already has an opinion on this latest one, and here's mine: sweet. If you haven't seen it yet, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a controversial ending that has many people angry and frustrated. It didn't bother me at all. Maybe I just like the flavor of Indy Kool-Aid too much.

So this time around Indiana Jones is really old. He is still teaching, and still searching for lost artifacts. The bad guys this time around are the Russians (led by Cate Blanchett), and it is 1957, Cold War fever. We first join our hero after he has been captured by the Reds and led to a top-secret military facility in Roswell, New Mexico (which, incidentally is where they stored the Ark of the Covenant). Indy is coerced into finding a box with a special mummified artifact inside. What is it? Honestly, it seemed pretty obvious to me the whole film, but apparently some people were surprised. Anyway, the fun ensues from there, and Indy eventually meets Mutt (Shia LaBeouf, the luckiest guy in the world). Mutt's mother is in danger, and the only thing that can save her is to find El Dorado, the mythical city of gold in South America. They go in search of the Crystal Skull, and then proceed to return that skull to its origin.

In order to watch and Indiana Jones film, you must suspend your disbelief and know that there will be many outrageous events happening. You must be able to say "Yeah, I guess Indy could survive an atomic blast" or "I guess I'll forgive the shotty research, and say it's no big deal that they implied the Mayans lived in Peru, instead of Mexico/Guatemala." You just have to go with the flow, it's way more fun. It may be harder now that I am an adult, whereas I grew up with the first three films. It is very different to see a new Indy after seeing the others when you are 9 years old, and that did concern me at first. But I just decided that I could be a kid again for a few hours, and it worked. And a quick sidenote, the best line in the film :"Just say 'grab onto the rope.'"

Indiana Jones epitomizes the desire we all have for adventure and excitement. He is adventure. He does whatever needs to be done without really thinking ahead. He jumps in with both feet and somehow comes out alive. Jones films also take that mythology that we all know, at least a little, and makes it come alive. Some of them may be fables, some I believe to be true (the Ark's power for one). These films let us believe that anything is possible, and there are mysteries still yet to be solved. I believe that the vast majority of humanity wants to believe that there are countless mysteries that we don't know. Hardly anyone wants to believe that everything is explainable by science and research. That's just not exciting. It also reflects the fact that God's creation will always have an element of mystery. We will never know the whole story of this place, or of God until "that day."

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull delivers the fun, the adventure, and the excitement. It doesn't quite deliver in terms of an interesting mystery of folklore as much as, say, the first and third films. There are a few things that fall short, but overall I do think this Indy lives up to the name. It may not be as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade (the best), but it definitely equals Temple of Doom. Even though Dr. Jones is old, he still packs a wicked punch.

Iron Man

2008-05-02T09:45:00.004-06:00

The summer movie season kicks off this year with Iron Man (and snow here in Denver, by the way). This superhero film, directed by Swingers "wingman" John Favreau, follows the usual formula but takes it to another level.

The fantastic Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark, the world's foremost weapons developer. After being kidnapped and seeing his weapons in use by the enemy, Stark has a change of heart. He decides to use his immense wealth and power for good instead of for the bottom line. And yeah, he makes a flying armored suit. It's sweet.

Iron Man deals with the ethics of war, even if the special effects take center stage. Are those who make weapons responsible for their use? Where does business ethics come in? Do we need to make these massively destructive weapons to keep peace in the world? Is it a necessary evil? Do those who have more have a greater responsibility to do more with that (ie. Jesus' parable of the talents in Mt. 25)? If so, Stark was not using his talents wisely at all at the beginning of the movie. But by the end, he decided to stop being incredibly selfish and start doing good, even at great personal sacrifice. Iron Man is a different kind of super-hero. Like Batman, he does not have super-powers or genetic mutations. This is all based upon money and science. Therefore, this superhero is more believable and realistic (this can be a plus or minus, depending on your preference). But it is clear that, with the right tools and funding, a great deal of good can be done in this world. Though ultimately, the world will still be the world, and evil will still be evil, no matter how much we fight it. That doesn't mean we stop fighting though. We are called to fight, but we as Christians are also to remember that the only lasting change comes by the power of Jesus Christ, not by anything that we can do.

What makes this film epically enjoyable is the performance of Downey Jr. He is hilarious, yet carries the depth and realism of the character very well. Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jeff Bridges all do great, but it is truly Downey Jr.'s show. The script is great, with a fantastic balance of action, comedy, and thought. It is a popcorn flick, but a perfectly tuned one. It makes us think, but also makes us laugh and makes our jaws drop (especially that Audi R8, wow). For the second summer in a row, we have a film that is all that summer movies should be. It's time to get excited about all the other potentially great "summer movies" to come this year (Indiana Jones, The Happening, The Dark Knight).

Top Ten Films of 2007

2008-04-24T12:38:00.018-06:00

This is my favorite post of the year, the time I get to spout my opinion about what I think has been the best this last year. And 2007 has been a fantastic year for film. Without a doubt this was the best year of the decade so far. It has been incredibly difficult to narrow a list down to a top ten, so I decided to go with a top fifteen. And even with that there are still so many thoroughly enjoyable films that did not make my list.

So without further ado, here are the fiften films that I enjoyed the most in 2007. These films taught me about life, about myself and others, about humanity, about God, and about our relationship to Him. I have written a review of each of these films, so feel free to visit those posts for further investigation into each of these works of art.

15. Zodiac

14. Breach

13. Into the Wild

12. Atonement

11. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

10. The Savages

9. Knocked Up

8. Sunshine

7. The Darjeeling Limited

6. Ratatouille

5. Lars and the Real Girl

4. Gone Baby Gone

3. No Country For Old Men

2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

1. There Will Be Blood

And there it is. I would love to hear others' opinions on the list, and anyone else's list. Let me know what you think/what films impacted you the most this year.

Lars and the Real Girl

2008-04-21T07:59:00.006-06:00

"Love is God in action." This is the message one Sunday at the church in a small Canadian town where Lars and the Real Girl is set. And this idea is truly investigated in this quirky comedy with great depth.

Lars (Ryan Gosling, otherwise known as "the man") is a lonely man. He doesn't like it when anyone touches him, in fact it causes him pain. He is 27 years-old and doesn't have a girlfriend. He lives with his brother, Gus, and sister-in-law, Karin. Their father has died and left them the house, but Lars chooses to live in the garage. He has isolated himself from connecting with others, especially women. Everyone in town is trying to hook him up with a girl, but he wants nothing to do with that. Eventually Lars hears about a website that sells plastic women, and orders one. In a way it is a subconscious jesture to get everyone off his back. There are many more layers to his psyche here, which I will get to later. Needless to say (so why am I saying it, ok, maybe it's not needless), his family is shocked and disturbed. Lars introduces them to Bianca, who is half Brazilian and half Danish. She doesn't speak much English. And she is religious, so Lars asks his family if Bianca can sleep in the house so no hanky panky happens. Lars truly believes she is real.

Gus and Karin take Lars and Bianca to the doctor, who is also a shrink, the next day. The doctor informs them that this is a delusion, and that it would be best if they played along with it. Gus is very reluctant and even tries to tell Lars that Bianca is plastic (which he just completely ignores). Eventually they act as if Bianca is real. They talk to her, ask her questions, drive her places, tuck her into bed, etc. Gus and Karin also meet with the church leaders and ask them to play along. After some discussion, they decide to go along with it. What follows is a great example of God's love in action. The church ladies come over often, doing Bianca's hair, taking her to volunteer, and welcoming her into the community as a whole. After a few months everyone in this small town knows that Lars is delusional and they are supposed to play along. Stares still happen (though Lars shrugs them off, thinking they are because Bianca is in a wheelchair), but the community truly comes together to be what Lars needs them to be. You may be wondering why they are supposed to play along. Wouldn't it be better if he just faced reality?

Well, Lars' mother died when he was born. This has caused him a great deal of guilt and pain. This is why he has trouble connecting with others, especially women. He still takes the blanket his mother knit for him everywhere. And now his sister-in-law is pregnant. He thinks she is going to die. This is his way of coping. There is nothing anyone can do to make him snap out of it. It will be over when he needs it to be over, but right now in his life he needs Bianca. So the community, starting with the church, sets aside their pride and embarassment to help a brother in need. Again, "Love is God in action."

At one point Lars brings up the topic of manhood with his brother. Lars thinks it would be wonderful if his culture had rites of passage into manhood, like Bianca's culture does. He asks Gus what it means to be a man (because we can tell that Lars has definitely not made that step). This is, I believe, one of the most important questions in our culture today. Gus says that it is doing the right thing, doing good, even when it hurts. Their father was a man because he could have given them up for adoption but chose to raise them instead, even with a broken heart. This question shows that Lars is beginning to deal with what he needs to deal with.

There is a beautiful scene later in the film where a girl who has had a crush on Lars for a long time breaks up with her boyfriend. Not only that, but a co-worker put a noose around her teddy bear. Lars goes to console her (a big step for him), and while she is talking he performs CPR on the bear. Lars values inanimate objects much more than most people. He sees what the bear means to her. His weakness has become a strength. God turns our weaknesses into strengths for His glory. This is a beautiful contradiction.

So ultimately, why does Lars need Bianca, and when will her purpose be fulfilled? *spoiler alert* It all leads up to the birth of Karin's child. While Karin is about eight months along, Bianca gets terminally ill (Lars' idea, not anyone else's). Eventually she passes away and the community comes together to comfort Lars and mourn the loss of Bianca. The people are hit by this death more than one would think they should be, especially Gus. He has had a transformation throughout the film. He has come to grips with his role in Lars' disfunction and learned a lot about his own manhood. The church ladies come to Lars' side with food and encouraging words. They sit with him, they are Christ's body. The timing of Bianca's death is significant. In Lars' mind, the birth of one means the death of another. So, since Bianca dies before Karin's baby is born, Lars sacrifices his woman for Karin. If one had to die, he took it upon himself (totally subconsciously) to lose his woman, instead of having his brother lose his wife. In all of our weirdness and brokenness, there is beauty.

Lars and the Real Girl is not only beautiful, but is is also hilarious. Just imagine the look on a four year-old's face when he sits on Bianca's lap, or when Karin calls 911 because Bianca is unconscious. This film investigates "mental illness," death, manhood, and loss with great tenderness and authenticity (yes, in a movie about a guy getting a blow-up doll off the internet). This film suprised me with its insight into humanity, and its amazing picture of God's love. It takes courage to make a film with this premise, and to be honest it takes courage for audiences to give it a chance as a good film. But that courage will not be wasted.

Horton Hears A Who

2008-03-20T15:09:00.003-06:00

It is a great time to be a parent in our culture. So many of the "kids" films out there are fantastic, and Horton Hears A Who is the latest. This is by far the best Dr. Seuss adaptation I have seen since the old school Grinch. And what a cast: Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Carol Burnett. The animation is top-notch beautiful in every way, truly capturing Seuss' unique style but also modernizing it for the CG age. This is a very pleasurable film not only for kids, but also for adults.

We all grew up with the story of an elephant noticing a small world of "whos" on a tiny speck which landed on a flower. We all know that this elephant, Horton, does whatever he can to protect this spec. And we all remember the theme of the story: "A person's a person, no mater how small." What an important statement. We all struggle, as I know I do, with feelings of superiority at times, especially living in such a privileged culture and time. We have to remember we are no better than any of God's creation. We are no better than those who have gone before us, no better than those who have less, and no better than the stray dog running across the street. God created this world and said that it was good. Then He commanded us people to rule over it. What a misunderstood section in Scripture, one that has been used over the years to dishonor the God who gave it all to us. He wants to to take care of His creation, to honor Him by being His stewards. We are in charge for only a time, and we are responsible for running the show in a way that honors Him. God didn't tell us to rule over the earth because He didn't care about it, because He wanted us to treat it like our trash can/dump/etc. If God created the world and said that it was "good," how can we think otherwise. I know, it sounds too much like a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap, but I believe that caring for God's creation is foundational to Scripture. Let us be a "pro-life" people in every sense, not just narrowing our view of "pro-life" to be solely a battle that takes place in a mother's womb. My parents raised me to love and respect the environment, and here is a film that will help me do the same for my son.

Horton reminds us to love all, as hard as that sounds (let's face it, it is impossible without God). Horton is a great example of selfless love and sacrifice, one that reminds us that life is a miracle, and that we have no more right to it than others, people or otherwise.

The Darjeeling Limited

2008-03-12T13:49:00.004-06:00

What a thoroughly enjoyable film to watch. The Darjeeling Limited is about the haphazard spiritual journey of three brothers: Francis (Owen Wilson) Peter (Adrian Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman). They are all at a crossroads in their lives, especially Francis. He has just been in a life-threatening accident and wants to make the most of the time he has here and now. So he gets his estranged brothers (they don't speak much) and they go on a journey through India on a train, the Darjeeling Limited.

These brothers have not seen each other since their father's funeral (which their mother did not show up to), and now are learning to reconnect. They all have their secrets and pains in life, and they are trying to guard themselves from each other. Francis planned the trip through India to see spiritual places, temples/shrines, gurus, etc. They are three Westerners trying their best to experience the spirituality of an Eastern worldview. This is pathetic, funny, interesting, and fascinating. It echoes Ecclesiastes 3:11, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men." God created us all to be spiritual beings, and to desire something beyond ourselves. These brothers epitomize that. They are searching for something bigger, something beyond themselves. It is sad to think that they grew up in a "Christian" country, yet had to travel to the other side of the globe in search of "spirituality." We as Christ-followers had let them down. One particular ritual takes center stage in the film, this being the one involving the peacock feather. The first time they try, each brother does the ritual differently, and they all end up angry and flustered. Ah, man's futility in trying to reach God. We must realize that it is about God reaching down to us, not the other way around. He is the gracious initiator.

Yet the trip does provide the brothers with truth and wisdom. They learn about themselves, and each other, in a way that they had never done before. Each man is struggling to not let others in to his true heart, yet (through gossip, ironically) each is laid bare before his brothers and becomes vulnerable. This is always a good thing. One particular incident, involving saving children from a rushing river, brings their trip to a head. They come face to face with humanity at its rawest. Though they do not speak the Indians' language, and the Indians do not speak theirs, there is a profound connection between the two groups. Though these Americans are continents away from home and everything they know, all the cultural walls come down and a fundamental human love is reached. It is a truly beautiful thing. And this epiphany of shared humanity inspires the brothers to continue on their own pilgrimage, one involving their past.

The Darjeeling Limited does a fantastic job of walking the lines between awkward, funny, touching, and authentic. As with all Wes Anderson films (The Life Aquatic, Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, etc.), life is at once real, strange, inspiring, gawky, and unrefined. His film feels more real and less staged than a normal film, it captures the oafishness of our lives and of all humanity. Darjeeling reminds us of our futile attempts to connect to the divine, our pathetic attempts at hiding our faults and scars, and yet, in the end, reminds us of our shared humanity, our shared pains, and our shared victories. Wes Anderson has made his best film to date.

Be Kind Rewind

2008-03-12T09:31:00.003-06:00

Michael Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) should be lauded for his brilliant creativity. In Be Kind Rewind he has made a hilarious movie about the importance of creativity itself. Jerry (Jack Black) has accidentally erased all the VHS tapes in his friend Mike's (Mos Def) store. But the faithful customers want their movies. So when one woman really wants to see Ghostbusters, and the tape is erased, they make their own version starring themselves and some tin foil. Jerry and Mike go on to make many more films, like RoboCop, Driving Miss Daisy, and Rush Hour 2.

The story eventually becomes a David vs. Goliath tale. The guys want to save the video store, and they will do anything to do so. But the video store has videos, VHS, who watches videos anymore? Plus, they are just a mom and pop store in an old neighborhood. How can they compete with the giant Blockbuster-like stores that are popping up everywhere (the ironic thing is that Blockbuster is having the same problem, getting shoved out by the likes of Netflix). The store, also called Be Kind Rewind, has an identity tied to the neighborhood, whereas the giant corporation is bland and has no personality. This can be translated to their creative enteavors as well. Gondry could be saying that these low-budget, hack remakes have more heart and soul than the multi-million dollar studio pictures that they are remaking. Hollywood itself is one big, bland, repetitive corporation, and what we need to do is find people that are actually doing original, cutting-edge things in film. Yet at the same time, the guys are embracing their past (in the form of Fats Wallace, a famous jazz musician). But it is still creative, still original, still full of the neighborhood's personality. The message of this film resounds with what happened this year in regards to the Oscar-winner for best song, Once. Once was a "starving artist" film, in which the musicians/actors did everything out of creativity and originality. Three cheers for another film lauding the creative process and going against the epitome of everything wrong with the apprecation of art in our culture, ie American Idol and everything like it.

Be Kind Rewind not only shows us the importance of artistic originality, it is just flat-out funny. They way they remake the films made me nearly fall out of my seat. Great times.

Vantage Point

2008-02-29T08:56:00.003-07:00

Vantage Point is a story of a terrorist attack in Spain, as told from eight points of view. It is a exercise in perspective. We all have a different perspective as to what is going on in the world. The film stars Dennis Quaid (sorry, but he totally sucks), William Hurt, Matthew Fox, Sigourney Weaver, and Forest Whitaker, among others. The President is shot (ok, the double of the President, the trailer gives away a little too much here). Explosions ensue, and chaos erupts at this summit meeting that was designed to help stop terrorism. The terrorists strike this meeting for a reason.

This film is quite entertaining, and clocks in at an hour and half, so it packs its punch in a concentrated amount of time. The story starts and we see the events from the perspective of the news network. Then we rewind and see it all again from the perspective of a Secret Service agent. We go back a third time and see it all through the eyes of an undercover Spanish cop. Then again through a tourist, then through a terrorist, etc. This repetition sounds a little boring, but it truly does provide completely different perspectives. In a way, this film takes the Crash filmmaking style and turns it into an exciting action movie. Don't look to Vantage Point to give you a lot in terms of depth and insight into the human condition. It offers nothing profound. Instead, it entertains us immensely and gives us that little rush in searching for the truth. We want to know what happened, and we get to take part in figuring it out. I was very weary of this film because I had been seeing the trailers for almost a year and the release date kept getting pushed back (that usually means the movie sucks, and they don't know what to do to make it better). The film is an exciting, fun to watch experience, a nice action escape following the amazing but heavy-hearted Oscar season.

The Brave One

2008-02-19T08:17:00.004-07:00

"Vengeance is mine," sayeth Erica Bain. Bain (Jodie Foster) was mugged, along with her fiance, one night in New York City. Her fiance was beated to death, and Bain was close to death herself. These muggers were sick and twisted. They even videotaped the event. Now Bain needs healing, and she needs to find some way to continue to live with these brutal scars.

Bain's journey back to society begins with getting a gun. She feels unsafe, and no one would blame her for wanting to protect herself. But she feels she needs a gun immediately, and she is having none of this 30 day waiting period crap. So Bain goes to a black-market gun dealer and picks up a 9mm. Now she feels powerful, she feels safe. One night she gets caught in the middle of one man's murderous rage in a convenience store. She must protect herself in order to survive, and does so. But this first act of killing awakens something inside Bain. She flees the scene, destroys any evidence that she has been there, and decides that she will give in to this change, to this new person she is becoming.

Bain is also a radio talk-show host, telling stories of New York City. She uses this as a veiled confessional throughout the film. Also, she meets a detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) who is on the case of the convenience store shootings. They become friends, and Mercer respects Bain's opinion because of what she has been through in the past. Little does he know, he is looking for her.

As is pointed out by a caller on Bain's radio show, we are all happy to see bad guys shot in the head. We all want to see justice, and when the law is too slow, too beaurocratic, or too inept, we like to see people take justice into their own hands. Our desire for justice comes from God. God is a just God, and since we are made in His image, we have a desire for justice as well. It is not wrong to want things to be fair, for things to be right. But God does say "Vengeance is mine." He is ultimately the only one who can judge fairly and justly. When we take matters into our own hands, as Bain does, we are playing God and claiming we know how to handle a situation just as well as He would. Does that mean that God never wants us to get involved? No, but we must learn to entrust our actions and decisions to God. We also must defer to the government in place, as is stated in Romans chapter 13. Yet, there are times when that government fails to do its job. Thus, vigilante justice. This idea is one that gets plenty of screen time in Hollywood, and that is because it reflects a deeper desire, the desire to make things right. We want to play a part in that process. We want to be the heroes and kill the bad guys. Wouldn't it be great if we could just put two slugs in the murdering pedophile or serial rapist? Wouldn't it feel great? Those are the questions The Brave One asks. But let us remember to leave true justice in God's hands, not ours. There is a reason that God instituted "cities of refuge" in the book of Joshua. If someone accidentally killed another, they could flee to these cities for protection from vengeful family members of the victim. They were in place to protect people from vigilante justice. God knows the whole story, we don't, we have a limited view. And isn't that what the courts are there for, at least in theory? To really get the whole story?

Healing is another important theme in The Brave One. Bain is seeking healing from her past, specifically from losing her fiance to brutal violence. The film seeks to show her process as one that goes through violence. Somehow, the enacting of vigilante justice violence brings about her healing, helping her to be confident and to gain the ability to function again. There it is, "the myth of redemptive violence." True healing can only come from Jesus, and it is a process that would be hindered or stunted by vengeance. The focus should be on ourselves, not on those who wronged us. We cannot control the actions of others, and are only responsible for our own. Revenge brings some temporary satisfaction, but I challenge the idea that it brings healing. Detective Mercer is also seeking healing. He is going through a divorce, which is the death of a relationship. He feels rejected, unsafe, violated, and scarred, just like Bain. Their stories parallel each other. But how does Mercer find healing? How does he seek it? These two stories intersect at critical points in the narritive, and the conclusion ties it all together.

The Brave One is a pretty standard premise. This film may or may not perpetuate some of the standard Hollywood myths (vigilante justice and redemptive violence), I will leave that up to you, the viewer. But it does delve into our psyches and show us who we are, and why we have this thirst for justice. Yes she is brave, but is it the right kind of brave?

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2008-02-17T22:03:00.004-07:00

It is obvious from the title that this is not a film about what happened, but rather about why it happened.

Written and directed by newcomer Andrew Dominik, The Assassination of Jesse James stars the great Brad Pitt as even more famous bank robber and outlaw James. We start to follow James near the end of his crime career, as things are winding down and his brother Frank is wanting to get out of the game. We meet Robert Ford (Casey Affleck in an Oscar nominated performance) as he is joining the gang for a hit on a train. He has idolized James his whole life, and at 20 Ford still seems as giddy as a school boy around his idol. So how does he get from point A (hero worship) to point B (killing the man he idolized)?

James would fit in well in our culture today. He is a man who makes his own rules, who answers only to himself, and who seems above the law. He is a renegade, a man we all want to be in a way (some more blatantly than others). We all want to be able to do whatever we want all the time. And back then, just as in our time, some people are blown up to mythic proportions. Yet in the West of the 1880's and 1890's it was harder to find out the truth about someone. Their legend would just grow and grow. Robert Ford had a box under his bed of all things James: dime-store novels, newspaper clippings, and even trinkets from his first job with the famous criminal. After getting to know Ford, James began to understand this man's obsession. He asked "Do you want to be like me? Or do you want to be me?" There is a disturbing scene later in the film in which Ford goes through the James house when they are at church. He sips James' water, sniffs James' pillows, pretends to have a stub of a right middle finger like James, and even imagines what James might feel like if Ford were to kill him. In a way he reminds me of myself, or any young man, who idolizes an athelete or a musician (for me those were Ken Griffey Jr. and Eddie Vedder). Ford is still stuck in pre-adolesence, many people are.

As Ford gets to know his hero, he begins to see that this man is human. He begins to realize that the one man he wanted to be is not all he had dreamed of. Or is this just his way of rationalizing the fact that he has decided to protect himself and his family by killing this man? After the assassination we see Ford's reactions, and this explains his psyche in more detail. How does he deal with the fact that he killed the man he worshipped, and in so doing killed some part of himself (hopes/dreams/desires/identity/etc.)? He ends up reenacting the scene on stage day in and day out. He soaks up fame and glory, along with ridicule and threats. He has become nearly as famous as the man he killed (much like Lee Harvey Oswald). He struggles with what he has done. Was he a hero or a coward? Many heckle him, call him names, and are incredibly angry at him for killing such an "important" man, a symbol, a legend, a demi-god. How does he view himself now that this is all over? Did he do it for fame and glory, because it was the right thing to do, or simply because he was scared James would kill him?

The character of Jesse James is interesting, but is almost irrelevant in the film. He is more of an idea than a person. The story centers around Robert Ford, a man with whom we can relate much more easily. He is a man conflicted and confused. He wants to be a real man, a man of courage and strength. He was made to worship something (as are all of us), but doesn't really know what that should be. So he ends up worshipping the most visible symbol of the qualities he admires.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a wonderful western, but a different kind of western. There are no clear good guys, everyone is at least a little bad. The genre has seen a revitalization as of late (this film, 3:10 to Yuma, HBO's Deadwood, etc.) which makes me very happy. Jesse James both honors the genre and takes it in new directions. The cinematography is breathtaking, which is something that always sticks out to me. This film is a long journey well worth the reward, a better understanding of what God meant when he said "Thou shalt have no idols."

The Bucket List

2008-02-16T11:08:00.002-07:00

How can you go wrong with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman? In The Bucket List Jack plays Edward Cole, a very wealthy man who has recently discovered he will die soon. Freeman plays Carter Chambers, a not-so wealthy man who has also discovered he has only a few months to live. As fate would have it, these two men end up rooming together in the hospital (Cole's hospital). They decide to follow through on an exercise that Chambers had done in college. That exercise: make a list of everything you wanted to do before you kicked the bucket. Thus the title, and plot of the film.

So if you could know the exact moment of your death, would you? A good question which, according to the film, 96% of people answered no. But what would be the advantage of knowing? Well, you wouldn't worry about what you normally worry about. You would live with a wreckless abandon, making the most of the time you have left. So why don't we live like that always. Well, there's that whole responsibility thing. To some extent, we should live every day like it is our last. But on the flip side, it is irresponsible for us to live like that all the time. We have families, children, or other responsibilities that should be more important to us that our own personal happiness. Yet, as the film points out, when we "truly live" we actually make life better for those around us too, sometimes. It is a fine line to walk, but we should all ask God's wisdom in figuring out how to live our life completely and fully in the here and now, while still honoring and loving those around us.

The thing that stuck out to me as I watched the film was our culture's lack of same-sex friendships, guy friendships to be specific. We as American men, in many ways, don't know how to have good guy relationships. Usually it takes something tragic to bring us together (like cancer in the film). I realized this while I watched the film next to a man whom I have grown very close to over the last few years. Sadly, this friendship did not go to a deeper level until tragedy hit. Nonetheless, I am extremely grateful for this friendship. Guy friends are something all of us men need desperately, and we need to be courageous and take our some of our acquaintances to a deep level of friendship. We are not all God created us to be without them.

The Bucket List bordered on cheesy at times, but it ended up being better than I had expected. It helps us ask hard questions of our own lives, and to truly be thankful for every moment we have been given by our gracious God (whether those moments are fun, difficult, painful, or breathtaking).

The Savages

2008-02-06T08:39:00.000-07:00

Laura Linney (in an Academy nominated performance) stars alongside my favorite actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman, in a new dramedy about what happens to our deteriorating bodies during old age. These two fine actors play Wendy and Jon Savage, two siblings who have been estranged from their father, Lenny, for many years. After finding out that their father has lost his girlfriend, been kicked out of his house, and is developing dementia, Wendy and Jon go down to Sun City, AZ to bring their father back to New York. They decide to place him in a nursing home. They struggle with this decision, especially Wendy who sees it as cruel and unusual punishment. But Jon is comforted by the fact that they are treating their old man better than he ever treated them.

One scene in The Savages stood out to me more than any other. After putting Lenny in a nursing home, Wendy decides that he deserves better. So they take him to another facility to interview, and Wendy thinks this place is much better than the one he is in now. It has nice, manicured lawns. It has tall, beautiful trees. It looks wonderful on the outside, and it has all the bells ans whistles. But Jon makes a scathing observation. He says that all of this outward beauty is there for the visiting family of the resident, not the resident themself. It is all there to distract the family from the fact that people are dying, and that death is a horror show. It is a filthy, messy thing to die. All of the wonderful outward adornments are there to prey upon the guilt that family members feel in abandoning their loved ones.

Death is a horrible thing, and we all know that death entered the world because of sin. It is our punishment for rebellion against God. Death is our cage. Yet Christ conquered death on the cross, and we now can have ultimate freedom from this horrible end. But instead of seeing the truth, the deliverance from death in Christ, we as a society just try to cover up the problem and act like it isn't there, or it's not that bad. Let us not ignore that fact that death is real and scary, lest we minimize Christ's victory over this horrible foe.

Lenny experiences advanced stages of dementia, specifically Parkinson's disease. He sometimes forgets who his children are, and rarely shows any love or affection for them (he never did much of this anyway). So this is the question that is asked of Jon and Wendy: Can you love someone who doesn't love you back? Can you love someone who doesn't know who you are? We all fall into the trap of "loving" others only when we think we will get something in return. That is not love. True love is giving, and giving, and giving, with absolutely no thought of and of it reciprocating. This is Jesus' love. And this love is impossible without Jesus.

Wendy is a very interesting character in this film. She is incredibly selfish, but masks it by trying to do everything perfect on the outside for her father. She is trying to assuage her guilt all the time. She is also very insecure because of her childhood, and therefore tries to find the approval of a man. She chooses the absolute worst person in the world to latch onto, a married man. She carries on this relationship, a pathetic one, for her own need of security. Yet, her deep need is never met. When a man from Nigeria takes an interest in her and her father, she immediately translates that gesture into a desire for romance, and kisses him. Her insecurity is heart-breaking. At the end of the film, she finally finds a good outlet for her desire to help others and find purpose. She eventually finds some sort of security in herself.

The Savages delves into one of the most taboo topics in our society today, the elderly population. The film treats the subject with the seriousness it deserves, but also is awkwardly funny and true to life. People are real people in this film, and they are all imperfect. People sometimes have to make very difficult decisions. Some people truly need specialized care, but the sad fact is that some children put their parents in "homes" merely because they have become too great a burden. I do not want to minimize anyone's decisions about how to care for their loved ones, but regardless of what decision is best for our elderly family members, we are all called to love and support them unconditionally no matter what state thier bodies or minds are in. This is a great film by relative newcomer Tamara Jenkins that not only hits an emotional nerve, but reminds us that life is funny too, and strange, and awkward.

Cloverfield

2008-01-30T17:46:00.001-07:00

Cloverfield is about fear's overwhelming presence in our lives. Fear can cripple us all. We all walk around in fear for a good chunk of our lives, just waiting for something to happen (especially since 9/11). I am not saying that it is apparent all the time, but in the back of our minds I believe we all have real fears. Cloverfiend plays on those fears. It does not try to explain what is attacking New York City, or why. Those are irrelevant questions. The only thing that matters is that something very scary is killing people, lots of people.

This film puts us there as it is happening. We are part of the experience. We see what the characters see, and feel what they feel. It is all about perspective. The film was shot with a camcorder, so be aware that it is shaky and jerky. A bunch of friends are at a get together for a friend who is leaving for Japan. During the party something that feels like an earthquake happens. Then a giant explosion, and all the people that we have been getting to know must now run for their lives. What they thought was important no longer carries any value. Tragedy makes us realize that very few things are truly important to us. They are scared out of their minds as they slowly learn more about what is happening. But again, the film is not about why or why. It is about how we as humans experience fear and catastrophe, but taken to the ultimate extreme.

Cloverfield is as tense a movie as I have seen in a long time. Some may be turned off, or just made sick, by the shooting style. I think it is brilliant. It has been called Blair Witch meets Godzilla, but Cloverfield is far, far superior to either. This film is very entertaining. It truly gives you a unique experience (not unlike the last film I saw, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). We are not only put in NYC during some sort of horrific attack, but we as the audience experience the fear and the tension much more than your standard disaster flick with a third-person omniscient perspective. Cloverfield is an existentialist film. Sometimes horrible things happen, and it doesn't really matter why. We just have to deal with them as they come. All that is relevant during times of horrible disaster is survival; our own survival and the survival of those we love.

Is it all hopeless? Are we all just going to die? How do I stop being afraid? Fear grips us and does not let us go.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

2008-01-28T19:58:00.000-07:00

This is a special experience.

Based on a true story, Julian Schnabel directs The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the story (in French) of Jean-Dominique Bauby who was paralyzed from a stroke at the age of 42. We wake with Bauby in a hospital, and slowly come to realize that he has lost all movement in his body except in one eye. We journey with Bauby every step of the way. We live in his head, hear his thoughts, see what he sees, and experience what he experiences. This film makes you live inside another human being more than any other film I have ever seen. The direction of Schnabel is a revelation, something truly unique and creatively amazing.

I was dreading seeing this film because I despise sappiness. A terminally ill man with nothing to live for finds out what life is all about - gag. My cheese radar was on full tilt. Man, were my expectations off. Bauby is as real as one could get. The film never falls into over the realm of sentimentality. There is a great sense of humor throughout it all, and life, true life, comes to the forefront. It is not contrived or manipulated, it is real.

Just imagine being completely paralyzed, save one eye. You might feel a great deal of self-pity, I would. This is one of Bauby's most significant struggles. He tends to feel sorry for himself, but decides that he doesn't want to do that anymore. It will do him no good. It is a struggle throughout his life, but a battle he is willing to fight. We must not give in to this temptation either. Sometimes life is very hard, and it all seems very unjust. Yet, if we wallow in our own pool of self-pity we forget our purpose. We have to remember that we are all here for a reason, and God knows that reason. If we spend all our time focusing on how we have been wronged or how life isn't fair we miss out on so much. We all must fight the good fight (with God's help) against our own self-pity.

Before his accident, Bauby wanted to retell the story of The Count of Monte Cristo from a woman's perspective. In the original novel, a man is falsely imprisoned. When he escapes he spends all his time and money seeking justice and revenge. He seeks to right the wrongs done to him. It seems as if Bauby wants to write that story from the female perspective to take out justice and vengeance upon himself. Let me explain. He has not treated women well in his life. He has three kids with one woman, whom he did not marry, and sleeps with many others. He toys with them. Now, Bauby is actually in a prison (he calls it a Diving Suit), like the hero in The Count. He wants to right the wrongs from his past too, but those wrongs are not so much what has been done to him (outside of the stroke and paralysis of course) but what wrongs he has done to others. He begins to regret some choices he has made and desires to change them. But what if it is too late? How would someone right so many wrongs when all they can do is blink?

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is an overwhelming film spectacle, and Schnabel is well-deserving of his Oscar nod for Best Director. This film causes us to examine our lives, and to realize the gift of life we all have while we are still breathing. Life is precious, no matter what the quality seems to be. All life has meaning, even the seemingly hopeless and utterly lost. Life is good, because life is a gift from God.

Oscars 2007

2008-01-27T12:35:00.000-07:00

Well, let's hope that the Oscars actually happen this year. In that spirit, here are my thoughts on the nominations. First off, the Best Picture race has five very good films (Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood), just like last year. Lately the Academy has been choosing really good stuff. I thoroughly enjoyed all five film, and have a review of each one. That being said, I think There Will Be Blood should win, it was the best film I saw all year. I don't think it will though. I believe No Country will take the top prize, and that would not disappoint me at all. It is also a spectacular film. Although, Juno could sneak in there because it is the only film that is even remotely light-hearted.

Best Actor will and should go to Daniel Day-Lewis, who is just indescribable. I must say I was very happy to see Tommy Lee get nominated for In The Valley Of Elah, a much overlooked movie and performane, because he was great. For Best Actress I have to say I am a little unprepared. I have only seen two of the performances (Julie Christie and Ellen Page) thus far. They were both very good. I would have to predict Christie to win, though I do have to say that her performance in Away From Her did not even take center stage in the film. It was overshadowed by Gordon Pinsent's performance. Excellent film too, by the way.

For Best Supporting Actor I would give the Oscar to Tom Wilkinson, though Philip Seymour Hoffman was absolutely amazing as well. Sadly, I don't think either one will win, that distinction will go to Javier Bardem, who was great as well. Best Supporting Actress will be Cate Blanchett for I'm Not There (which I still need to see) or Amy Ryan for Gone Baby Gone. I do have to say Saoirse Ronin's performance was very, very good in Atonement, and I hope she wins.

The most important category most years is Best Original Screenplay because it is all about creativity. This year Juno will run away with it. It was awesome to see Ratatouille get a nomination here though, I love that film. The Best Adapted Screenplay is an overloaded category, so much competition, but No Country will win that one. And that leaves Best Director. The Coen's will probably take this award, though I would love to see P.T. Anderson take it. He is truly a master.

Well there you have it. I hope the show goes on. Another great year of nominations and an overall great year for good films. Click here for the official list of nominations.

Sunshine

2008-01-16T07:27:00.000-07:00

Good science-fiction uses the future as a means to ask hard questions and help us investigate ourselves and the world without the normal constraints. Sunshine does this excellently. Brit Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Millions) tries his hand at yet another genre and succeeds. The film centers around a crew of eight who is sent to the surface of the sun. Why? Because the sun is a dying star; it is burning out. Without the sun, our planet will die. So we as humanity have made a bomb the size of Manhattan, and we need to get that bomb to the center of the sun. Thus, the bomb will create a new star in the dying one. The crew (including Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeow, Chris Evans and Cliff Curtis) has been in space for a long time. Their ship is attached to the back of the bomb. They have a shield on the front of the ship that blocks the uber-intense heat of the sun. Their plan is to get close enough to the surface of the dying star to jettison the bomb, turn around, and head back to earth. The ship is aptly called the Icarus. Humankind has tried this before, and the first attempt failed seven years ago. This Icarus is earth's last hope; the earth has been depleted of bomb resources. If this mission fails, all humanity dies.

There is a dichotomy here. Our strongest desire is to survive. The death of nearly 7 billion people would be a horrible thing. We should do everything in our power to save our planet. God entrusted this planet to us, and we are called to be its steward. Yet there is this nagging feeling that we are playing God. We are putting the future of the universe in our own hands and manipulating everything for our own benefit. Do we have the right? Most people would say yes without question. But one man in the film has a different view of this. Is he crazy? He claims to

talk directly to God. What does God want? God loves his people, He would want the best for them. He created the world and said that it was good. Why would God allow the world to be destroyed then? Is this a test? God gave us the scientific ability to save the world, so why shouldn't we? Or is the dying of the sun God's plan, His judgment? The underlying questions of Sunshine are fundamental. Science and God are not opposing ideas. God created everything, and science is how we understand what God created. Yet how should we use science?

Sunshine looks stunningly beautiful. The pictures of the sun, its incredible heat, the vacuum of space, and the surface of Mercury all put us there. We are truly reminded of God's infinite power and creativity. And we are dwarfed by God's creation. Who is man, why do we think we are so great in the face of all this grandeur and majesty? If the sun-shield is turned just 1.1%, disaster could occur. Anything outside of the shield is immediately engulfed in flames. The temperature in the shadow, even that close to the sun, is -273 degrees celcius. Just imagine.

This film brings us face to face with eternal questions. It makes us investigate not only ourselves and our motives, but humanity as a whole. What is our place in the universe. To what extent would we go to save ourselves? Should we be allowed to save ourselves? Let us remember that God's creation is great, awe-inspiring, and powerful. And let us remember that we have a place in it. After He created man, God said it was "very good." God does take particular interest in us, He created us in our image. He also sent His son in our form to save us. We are very special to Him. So what does all of that mean in terms of the possible end of the world?

There Will Be Blood

2008-01-05T15:06:00.000-07:00

What happens when you pair the genius of Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love) and the genius of Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York, My Left Foot)? You get an epically beautiful movie-going experience.

Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a Texas oil man who starts his business around the turn of the century. After working hard for years and gaining a reputation as a great entrepreneur, Plainview receives a strange visitor, Paul Sunday. Sunday tells him of his father's ranch, and how there is oil coming up from the ground. Plainview is interested, but keeps his cards close to his chest. He visits, with his business partner/son H.W. and takes a look. Eventually Plainview ends up with the ranch and turns the small town of Little Boston into an oil money-maker. Now in this town there is a young, ambitious preacher named Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), brother of the man who led Plainview to the town in the first place. Eli has plans for his town as well, which include "saving" everyone who has come to Little Boston because of the oil, especially Plainview.

The film is very similar to two other American classics which tell of the rise and fall of great men, Citizen Kane and The Godfather. I know, that is a bold statement, but this film may very well deserve to be in that company. We start out liking Plainview. He is hard-working, which is seen by the first 15 minutes of the film (Plainview working by himself with no dialogue, beautiful). He is a master businessman, epitomizing the perfect capitalist. He makes himself rich instead of inheriting it all. There are parallels here with such great American business men as Rockefeller and Carnegie. Plainview is a good father; he is raising his son on his own and doing a pretty good job of it. I found myself caring deeply for this stoic, straightforward man. Yet by the end of the film I found myself hating him. How did we get there? We slowly find out who Plainview is and what his motivations are. There is a conversation near the middle of the film that reveals everything about Plainview. He says that he hates most people because he has a competition in him that makes him want everyone else around him to fail (even the ones he loves). He doesn't like to explain himself either; Plainview wants to be completely self-sufficient. This is a deeply flawed man. His flaws are not obvious, like so many villains in film history. This is a man whose motivations are his downfall. There is a great deal going on inside his head all the time, and we are privy to it only when he lets us in. A great character contains many layers, and Daniel Plainview is about as deep a character as it is possible to meet in two and a half hours.

Plainview's nemesis in many ways is Eli Sunday. Sunday's life parallels Plainview's. He wants to be great, to be rich, to be powerful as well. But instead of using oil, Sunday uses God. Sunday connives to get money for his church, manipulates to get the main road in the town to lead directly to the church, and works very hard to get Plainview to confess his sins in front of everyone and to repent and seek forgiveness from God. This last scene especially stuck out to me because it is a great example of using God for your own purposes, as a power play. It was very clear to me that Sunday did not care about Plainview's soul, he just wanted power over Plainview. The spiritual realm was the only arena in which Sunday had one hand up on him. I won't spoil the ending, but there is one scene in which Sunday comes face to face with who he is and what his motivations have been as well. Has he truly been a man of God, or was he just using religion for his own selfish purposes? At one point Sunday says that he would reach for God's hand in this hard time, but he cannot see it. How do we reach for an invisible God? For an exploration of this question, check out Philip Yancey's book Reaching for the Invisible God.

Religion and the American Dream are constantly in conflict in There Will Be Blood, yet many times they are running parallel courses. A child is marked with oil on the forehead, much like a baptism, and this is a powerful image. The central scene of the film takes place during an accident at an oil derrick. Plainview's son H.W. is knocked to the ground by the spewing oil and struck deaf. Plainview is panic-stricken and does everything he can for the boy. But while this is happening the derrick catches on fire. Plainview leaves his son to go take care of his business. Everyone around is frustrated and dejected, but Plainview is excited. They have struck it rich. He is torn between his son and his riches, but clearly chooses the latter in the end. His pursuit of his riches is merely the face of his greatest desire, power. And this desire for power is in the preacher as well. It seems on the surface that religion should stand at odds to this ruggedly individualist capitalism, but Anderson shows that sometimes they are one in the same. Yet we must realize that true religion is not a selfish power grab, but in fact the opposite.

A great filmmaker does not tell you, he shows you. This is what Paul Thomas Anderson does in There Will Be Blood. The film is based off of the Upton Sinclair novel Oil!, but Anderson adapted it for the screen and took the title from Exodus (which makes sense considering the strange events of Anderson's masterpiece Magnolia). As with American Gangster, this film examines the America Dream in great detail. It also delves into the heart and motivations of two men who are eerily similar. The cinematography is breathtaking. The use of music in the film is pitch-perfect and eery. The story builds to a stunning crescendo. The film was an absolute pleasure to behold. Day-Lewis has crafted an absolutely perfect performance that should win him an Oscar. Anderson has made an epic American film which is truly worth of being called a masterpiece. This is the film I have been waiting for all year. There Will Be Blood was one of those special movie-going experiences that I will not soon forget.

Juno

2008-01-04T23:05:00.000-07:00

Juno is a tale spun by newcomer Diablo Cody, and directed by Thank You For Smoking's Jason Reitman. The story revolves around Juno (Ellen Page) who went and got herself knocked up by Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cena). What should she do now? Juno is only 16 mind you, just a junior in high school. Her first instinct is to hit the local abortion clinic, but as she goes through the process she finds herself repulsed by it for no particular reason. Thus, Juno decides instead to give the baby away to a loving family. So she goes to meet one perspective couple, the Lorings (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman). She decides this family is a good fit and proceeds to let the baby cook in the oven for a few more months, pop the thing out, and get on with her high school years. The dialogue is quick and witty, the plot moves along swimmingly, and we enter into the world of a high-school girl.

At one point in the film Juno's stepmother says that there could be a precious blessing from Jesus in this garbage dump of a situation. This echoes many Biblical ideas, such as the story of Joseph ("What man has meant for evil God intended for good") and Paul's words in Romans ("In all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose"). A teenage pregnancy is not an ideal situation, and it adds a whole lot of extra stress to many lives. It is far from ideal, but God can take crappy things and turn them into good. We must remember this when we are going through the valley of the shadow of death in our own lives. We have to look for the blessing in it all.

Purpose plays a major role in Juno. People are constantly searching for what they are called to be (a mom, a rockstar, a normal girl, etc. ). One thing that impresses me about Juno's character is that she knows her role and she sticks to it. She realizes that she is not equipped to raise a child at this point in her life, so she turns it over to those who can. This is all way beyond her maturity level, and Juno is not afraid or ashamed to admit it. She knows her role and is alright with being in the process of figuring out her purpose in life. She is a work in progress (aren't we all), and she embraces this fact. There is no pride in her heart.

At one point, Juno wrestles with the idea of love between two people. She wants to know that it is possible for two people to truly love each other for the rest of their lives. Her father gives her great wisdom. He says "You need to find someone who loves you for exactly who you are, no matter what." Absolutely true. And that is a hard thing to find, and a hard thing to do. The film delves into that question, and examines our cultures ideas of love, marriage, commitment, responsibility, friendship, etc.

Along the lines of many "dramedies" lately (much like Little Miss Sunshine and Lost in Translation) Juno is an awkward, painfully real coming of age comedy that makes us laugh and cry at the same time. It asks questions that need asking, like: "What does a child mean and how does it change one's life?" and "What is true love?" The story treats teenagers with depth and dignity, something that is far too rare in films. It is also refreshing to see a film that is pro-life, and not just in a shallow political way. This film promotes the beauty and miracle of life itself. Juno is a joy to watch, an exciting and authentic trip into the psyche of youthful love and profound responsibility.

The Great Debaters

2008-01-04T22:29:00.000-07:00

Denzel Washington has joined the ranks of movie-stars turned directors (Eastwood, Gibson, etc.). The Great Debaters stars Denzel as Mr. Tolson, a teacher and debate team coach at a small Negro college in Texas (Wiley) in the 1930s. Tolson chooses four students to form his team, including Henry Lowe (Nate Parker), Samantha Brooke (Jurnee Smollett), and James Farmer Jr. (Denzel Whitaker - yeah, check that name out). Farmer is the son of the school's president, played by Forest Whitaker. Needless to say, the acting is superb, and not just from the two fantastic Oscar winners. So Tolson picks his team and trains them. The story progresses into a very familiar storyline: the team works hard, starts winning, starts competing against better competition, etc. Well, eventually they set up a debate against the Harvard team. Now this was a Negro team from Texas in the 30s, remember. Thus, race relations play a huge part in the film. Also, this was a very small school, going up against the reigning national champions. It seems rather fantastical, but it really happened.

One of the best things about this film is that it applauds intelligence. In The Great Debaters, the champions are crowned through hard work, discipline, and smarts. It is glaringly obvious that intelligence has little to no value to our society nowadays. This is especially true of the power of rhetoric. Hey, wait, you mean what we say and how we say it actually matters? Just listen to any sports interview for five seconds and see how completely idiotic people sound, see how many times you can count "ya know." I have taught a high-school speech class for four years now, so it is a subject I am familiar with (I do have to say though that I am much better at teaching speech than at doing it myself). I will be showing this film to my students every year from now on. As James reminds us in his epistle, our words have the power to heal and to destroy. The ship is controlled by the small rudder and the horse by a small bit, just as our being is controlled by our small organ known as our tongue. But instead of letting our tongue get out of hand, imagine if we use it for good, for change. This film reminds us of that potential, and shows us how important intelligence can be.

What is a good man? This film also puts forth a good picture of a man, a strong leader who loves his family, works hard, and is a gentleman. It is hard to find a film these days that actually says "this is what a good man is" instead of "look at all these worthless pigs."

During their training, Tolson drilled the students with this call and response:
"Who is the judge?"
"God is the judge"
"Why is He God?"
"He decides whether I win or lose, not my opponent."
"Who is your opponent?"
"He doesn't exist. He is merely a dissenting voice against the truth I speak."
Beautiful exchange, profound truth, one of the best movie quotes I have heard in a long time. We must remember that God is ultimately the judge of all that we do. Yet we so often get clouded by the opinions of others. When we are criticized, put down, argued against, attacked, we should always realize that if we speak the truth, there is nothing anyone can do to change it from being the truth. Truth is truth, period.

The Great Debaters' plot revolves around racism in the south as well. This is an important aspect of the story, but a sub-plot in my opinion. At its very soul, this film is about young men and women realizing their potential and working hard to achieve it. It is about the help that teachers and mentors give, the help we all need along the way. And it is about the power of the truth to change lives, and about the fact that we must seek after it long and hard if we desire to be part of it.

Charlie Wilson's War

2007-12-31T19:39:00.001-07:00

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

2007-12-28T13:14:00.000-07:00

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

2007-12-21T18:51:00.000-07:00

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

2007-12-19T19:37:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-22T10:35:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-21T09:44:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-19T10:07:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-09T07:56:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-01T13:42:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-21T11:38:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-20T09:20:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-19T17:24:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-09T08:30:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-05T09:29:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-25T11:25:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-24T12:57:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-20T22:16:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-17T17:40:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-11T08:01:00.001-06:00

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

2007-09-06T20:13:00.000-06:00

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

2007-08-19T21:28:00.000-06:00

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.

The Bourne Ultimatum

2007-08-09T10:28:00.000-06:00

Jason Bourne is a machine. How can anyone do the things he does? In third installment of the trilogy, The Bourne Ultimatum, Paul Greengrass (United 93, The Bourne Supremacy) delivers a shot of adrenaline straight to the heart of the audience. We have followed Bourne from the day he lost his memory until now. We know he is a super-agent/government assassin trained to do pretty much anything. But we, like Bourne, don't truly know how it all started, and who he really is. So Bourne is on the trail of his identity.
This film is non-stop intensity. As with all the films, Bourne hops from exotic locale to exotic locale, always one step ahead of those on his tail. And who is on his tail? The government. What a cast, along with Damon the film has Joan Allen, Julia Stiles, and the great David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck). And Ultimatum is fun, lots of fun. I am a big fan of the films, and this is a great ending to the trilogy. There is no disappointment at all in this sequel (which is usually the case). This has got to be the greatest spy franshise in film history by far. Sorry Bond, but Jason Bourne kicks the crap out of you.
Ultimatum plays with the idea of identity. Who is Bourne, and why does he act the way he does? We all have struggles with identity, and why we do the things we do. It is just a little more extreme in Bourne's case than for the rest of us. Bourne has to deal with things popping up inside of him that he doesn't understand. He acts without thinking. Like I said before, he is a machine. Sometimes we all act without thinking and do things we don't necessarily want to do (usually "bad" things). And what about Bourne's moral dilemma? He was trained to kill people. Does he have to take responsibility for that, or can he get a free pass because he was sort of brainwashed into doing it?
Bourne is also a quintessential American "loner," the rugged individualist who can do it all by himself. Yet even he needs help sometimes. America has long revered individuality, and that can be a good thing but most of the time it causes destruction and isolation. What we need instead is community. On the other hand, in Bourne's case, the fewer friends you have, the fewer chances you have to get stabbed in the back.
What makes Ultimatum such a great action film is that it is unpretentious. There are no patronizing nods to the audience, preparing them for what will happen next. Bourne thinks of what to do next before most people know there is even a problem. Therefore, Bourne starts doing things to solve his problems instantaneously. It's go, go, go, all the time, at full speed. Great car wrecks, high-speed chases, and shootouts. There is intrigue, mystery, and suspense. And the ending is fantastic. This is what action movies should be. Ultimatum is every bit as good as the other two films, and caps off the trilogy with style and greatness.

Rescue Dawn

2007-08-06T20:49:00.001-06:00

Acclaimed director Werner Herzog (Grizzly Man) brings to the screen the harrowing tale of Dieter Dengler, an American pilot shot down in Laos just before the war became official in neighboring Vietnam. Dengler is played by one of the best young actors around, Christian Bale. Dengler, after crash landing, tries to run and hide from the Laotian militias, who are eager to grab American prisoners. Eventually, Dengler is captured and taken to a makeshift prison camp. He soon finds out the other five prisoners have been there not for days, but for years. Will the rescue attempts find them? Will they survive?
One of the prisoners, Gene, is bent on the hope that the guards will release them any day now. When Dengler suggests an escape, Gene threatens to yell and alert the guards. Gene wants no one to ruin his chances at being let out. He has been there two years. This is an example of a false hope that destroys instead of gives life. Gene's hope is in the wrong thing. Although dangerous and far from certain, he should place his hope in an escape, which has a far greater chance of success. Hope is a great thing, but it is not enough to simply have hope. We must place our hope in the right things. Hope keeps us going, but false hope keeps us going in the wrong direction.
Torture plays a prominent role in the film; a rather timely subject. What should the Christian response to torture be? Obviously we are against it, but what if that torture brings about essential information to save lives? What if we captured an Al-Qaeda operative on September 10th and could only obtain information about the attacks through torture? Should we always be against it? In the film torture is used to incite fear and repress strength, a horrible human practice. But we must remember that torture is not only used by our enemies, but often by our own government as well.
The community of prisoners is an interesting study in human behavior. Why is it that we tend to forge the strongest relationships when under extreme stress and danger? Why don't we usually care deeply for each other under normal circumstances? In the film, the prisoners grow extremely close. The trauma catalyzes great comradery, but it also heightens the tension and brings about ridiculous infighting. They are all on the same team, why would they fight against each other? Maybe duress merely accentuates how we already feel about each other, taking it to the extreme. That's one of the main reasons I love war films, they capture humanity strained to the breaking point and revealing the truth of who we are.
At one point of extreme desperation, Dengler mutters an interesting plea: "God, why won't you help us when we need you most?" Sometimes we feel a deep sense of need for God because of our utter hopelessness. We turn to Him when we have nowhere else to run. But the fact is that we probably haven't realized the need for God at "good times" in our lives because He has been helping us in those times. If we never felt desperation, would we ever feel a deep dependence on God?
Rescue Dawn is an unassuming war film; though influenced by classic POW films like Bridge on the River Kwai and The Great Escape, it is vastly different. It is unique in that it does not try to overdramatize the events. Herzog usually makes documentaries (in fact he made a documentary of this story 10 years ago), and this film sometimes takes on the watchful eye of a spectator. The scene of the crash near the beginning is stunning and surreal. We the audience watch Dengler run across a field with the militia following him, but it is one continuous shot with no music or effects. This shot, as well as many others, takes us to East Asia and put us in the place of a prisoner of war. I know it's cliche, but Herzog made me feel like I was there. A truly remarkable story of human frailty, strength, desperation, and hope. Christian Bale is utterly breathtaking as Dengler. He should (and probably will) be nominated for an Oscar come Awards season. It was a pleasure to watch such a master at work. A beautiful and disturbing work, Rescue Dawn is the first truly great film of 2007.

The Constant Gardener

2007-08-02T19:41:00.000-06:00

[Because of a lack of great films to talk about right at the moment, I will be digging up films from 2005 that are well worth your time. This is the first.]

"Love. At any cost." The tagline from The Constant Gardener sounds like a vitally important ideal. So how does it play out in this new film from Academy-Award nominated director Fernando Mereilles (City of God)? This "Love" is both small and large, both individual and corporate, both personal and political, and it does come at great cost.
The story is set in Kenya, and centers around the lives of Justin (Ralph Fiennes) and Tessa (Rachel Weisz) Quayle. When Tessa is murdered, Justin is driven to discover the reason, and uncover his wife’s past. What begins as a murder-mystery soon becomes much more. A vast political conspiracy was being investigated by Tessa when she died, and now it is up to Justin to tell the truth.
Everyone on the planet is now well-aware of the health epidemic in Africa, but what are people doing about it? Well, in the film a handful of drug companies and financial opportunists decide that there is a vast wealth of money to be made. How? By using the Africans as guinea pigs. Is all human life sacred? What about people who will most likely die very soon? What if their sacrifice, unbeknownst to them, saved money and lives out in "the Western World"? Would anyone care if "expendable" Africans died for a "greater good"? How far would you personally go to do something about it? Would you sacrifice your reputation, your relationships, your career, your life? These are the questions raised by the film.
Fiennes performs convincingly, as usual, but Weisz steals the show. The passion for truth and justice in Tessa’s life shines through Weisz’s words. By the end of the film women, and men too, want to be more like Tessa, to make a difference in a real and powerful way.
Mereilles’ talent is evident throughout the film. (By the way, Mereilles’ first film, City of God, is fantastic, in case you were wondering). Not only is the story and acting intriguing, but the film is beautiful and visually stunning. The colors jump off the screen, and the exposure of the film almost burns your eyes. The film starts at the death of Tessa, and from there moves both forward and backward, filling in pieces along the way and confirming or abolishing our presuppositions about the truth. At times, the plot seems to have too many confusing details, but stick with it. Not every little piece has to make sense, because life is complicated, and often does not fit together perfectly in our minds.
The Constant Gardener does a great job of balancing global humanitarian activism with the sacred love between a man and a woman. It inspires us to seek out justice on a large scale, and love those who are next to us passionately. It takes a great deal of talent and hard work to pull this off. Though a "murder-mystery," the film does not linger in the well-trod ground of predictability; though a romantic film, it does not get sappy. The emotions are raw, and though not "based on a true story" the script is perfectly plausible.
Christ calls us to love all people, at any cost. We are to take care of the poor, the sick, the needy. Whether there is a pharmaceutical conspiracy or not, there are very real and pressing opportunities to help those in desperate need throughout Africa. Christ is calling us to action, let us not be silent. Jesus also desires us to live lives of righteousness, acting with love and truth in all that we do. Gardener does a great job of investigating both personal righteousness and political justice at the same time. A film this broad has to be good to pull this off.
In the end, the only thing in the film that is lacking is the title (which doesn’t really tell people anything about the story). So if it is not about gardening, what is it about? Love, plain and simple. Along the way, we learn about all the complexities of the lives of the characters, but in the end (literally) we come back to love. Love. What is love? What does "Love at any cost" look like? Great films leave us with more questions than answers. So, see the flick and talk amongst yourselves.

Renaissance

2007-07-26T17:27:00.000-06:00

Renaissance is a French black and white animated motion-capture film (that's a lot of adjectives) set in Paris, A.D. 2054. It is a little known film that was just released on DVD. The U.S. version is in English, with Daniel Craig playing the lead, Karas. Karas is a detective in search for a young scientist, Ilona Tasuiev. Tasuiev had been doing research for a mega-corporation, Avalon, who is in the business of making people healthier, stronger, happier, etc. Renaissance plays like a noir film. We follow ever move Karas makes as he slowly uncovers the truth about what Tasuiev was working on, and why it is so important. It is easy to tell that the film is highly influenced by one of the greatest sci-fi films of all-time, Blade Runner.
The theme of immortality begins to take center stage as the film progresses. Would we as humans want immortality? Avalon wants to make people "better" on the surface. So why not have people stay "pretty" forever? Yet an interesting point is made by one of the scientists who was working on the cure for death: "Without death, life is meaningless." Without an end, we would not value the life we have now. We would take everything for granted. There would be no need to savor this minute because we would have an infinite amout of minutes in the future. Another thought, what about having to give an account of our lives (judgment - it's not all bad)? If we never die then we are never held accountable for our actions. And, of course, there would be "no need" for heaven.
The plot is exciting and interesting, but what makes the film stand out is its stunning visual style. As I stated before, the film is black and white (no shades of gray at all). The world created by the style is engulfing. Sometimes I found myself forgetting what was going on just to watch the beautiful animation. It truly is a sight to behold, if you enjoy that sort of thing, completely different than any animation I have ever seen. Renaissance satiates that hunger for imagination and originality in an industry of copycats.

Ratatouille

2007-07-12T13:16:00.000-06:00

No one makes animated films better than Pixar. They just don't make bad moives, and their newest is actually one of their best. Ratatouille is about a creature caught between two worlds. Remy is a rat, eating trash all day long. But he has a dream, to be a gourmet chef like the great Gousteau. One day a crazed old lady tries to kill all the rats with gas and a shotgun (I tried to find a picture but couldn't, so you'll have to see it for yourself). So Remy runs away, and loses his family in the process. But, as luck would have it, he ends up in Paris, right next to his hero's (Gusteau's) restaurant. Thus, Remy wants to try his hand in the kitchen, so he sneaks in and makes a great soup. Linguine, the trash boy, gets the credit. Eventually, Linguine realizes Remy made the soup and they become the most unlikely pair of chefs in Paris.
As I said before, Ratatouille is about a creature caught between two worlds. He is a rat, so he is supposed to act a certain way/eat a certain way/live a certain way. Yet, he has always had this yearning that usually only appears in humans. He wants to be different, he feels called to a world in which he cannot belong. He is out of place either way. He is having an identity crisis. But Remy does not give up on what he believes is his true calling in life. He will not settle for what those around him tell him to do. In a strange way, it reminded me of when the old testament prophets feel like their tongues are on fire and there is no way to keep it in. We must follow our calling too. Yet, sometimes we are deceived into thinking something is our calling but it is not (see Lady in the Water). We must have discernment and wisdom in finding our calling.
Another theme that my wife pointed out was the clashing of artist and critic. Remy is an artist, and his nemesis is a famous Parisian food critic. Yet in the end, they coexist. They appreciate each other. The critic truly appreciates Remy's greatness in the kitchen, and Remy appreciates the critic's eye for greatness. They seem to need each other to fully realize their potential. And not only do the artist and critic coexist in harmony, but Remy's two worlds end up at peace too. Which, if nothing else, reminds us that shalom is possible, even between the two most opposite worlds imaginable.
Brad Bird (The Incredibles) delivers a marvelous story in the beautiful world of Pixar's computer animation. The film, like it's predecessors, caters more to adults than kids. It even seems to more than the others. This may be Pixar's most adult film yet. And oh yeah, there are many great laughs along the way. The magic is still alive at Pixar.

L'Enfant (The Child)

2007-07-12T12:50:00.000-06:00

Jean-Pierre Dardenne's L'Enfant, winner of the 2005 Palme D'Or (the top prize at Cannes), tells the story of a young couple in Paris. Sonia has just given birth to their first child. She is excited, but Bruno is not sure what to think. You see, he is the most irresponsible human being on the planet. He is a small time thief who spends every cent he gets within the first few hours of it being in his pocket. He rented out their apartment while Sonia was delivering, and now the child's (Jimmy) first few nights outside the hospital have to be spent under a bridge. Great guy, right? So now what do they do? While trying to find things for the baby, Bruno learns that people are willing to pay big money to adopt babies on the black market, with no questions asked. So Bruno considers this option. While Sonia is waiting in a line that could take hours, Bruno takes Jimmy for a walk. But in stead of Jimmy, Bruno brings back a wad of cash. Sonia passes out, and when she wakes up in the hospital she is understandably uber-pissed. He sold their son!
Bruno is a great study in our desire to be free from all responsibility and to never grow up. He wants to wander around and "be free" of everything that would hinder him. Even a child is an imposition upon his lifestyle. He merely wants to run around and have fun. And don't we all. Bruno is the epitome of selfishness. So how do we make the transition into maturity? What goes into that decision? I believe we all resist growing up to some degree, but why do some resist it so much more strongly than others? Remember Peter Pan, the boy who never grew up? It's a popular story for a reason.
So how could someone like that change? What would cause that? Does he change, does he experience redemption? I won't give it away, but the last scene of the film is at once beautiful, heart-breaking, and authentic.
Don't be scared of the film because it is in French. This study of human depravity is gut-wrenching and thought-provoking. It is shot in an extremely minimalist style, with little to detract from the main focus, Bruno, and his struggle to care about other people more than his own selfish desires.

Live Free Or Die Hard

2007-07-08T21:53:00.000-06:00

John McClane is the greatest action hero of all-time (duh), and here he comes for another round. I was scared at first because this fourth installment had two strikes against it (McTiernan was not directing, and it was only PG-13). Yet, Live Free does not disappoint. In fact, it is just about as fun as a movie can possibly be. In the great vein of Die Hard tradition, this film takes on a wild ride well worth your $9.
Live Free Or Die Hard focuses on a cyber-terrorism plot in which a group of bad guys execute a "fire sale" (they destroy all computer infastructure in America). That would suck, a lot. So who could possibly stop these mega-bad guys? McClane, idiot. He enlists the help of a cyber-nerd (Justin Long) and they are the only two guys who can get the job done. It's over the top action (McClane destroys a helicopter with a car), and hilarious one-liners (Die Hards are pretty much the only movies that do it well). How could anyone not have fun at this movie.
The terrorist plot brings up a great point, and an interesting theme. What do we place our trust in? Today, in America, it would seem that we trust computers (and the people who are in charge of them) more than anything. Is technology our god? What would we do without it? McClane is an "analogue guy in a digital world," and that is what ends up saving the day. He does things the old-fashioned way, without all the high-tech gadgets. We always have to be careful of falling into traps of trust and worship, lest we unknowingly worship idols.
McClane is an icon. He is the Lone Ranger. His personal life is a mess, he isn't the nicest guy, but he gets the job done. He is the only one that gets the job done. There is something captivating about a cowboy-type Lone Ranger who does it all on his own with his own rules. And he does it because it needs to be done, end of story. He doesn't want fame, fortune, etc. He wants to fix things. So in a sense McClane is a Christ-like servant. But on the other hand, he kills a whole bunch of people. The ends don't justify his means. But growing up I wanted to be McClane more than any other hero.
The film rocks on so many levels and does not disappoint the Die Hard franchise. The only drawback is the bad guy played by Timothy Oliphant (he just sucked). Kevin Smith had a great cameo, lots of stuff got blown up, lots of cars got totalled, and lots of evil dudes got their butts kicked. I am still a loyal fan of the greatest action franchise of all-time.

Transformers

2007-07-02T23:13:00.001-06:00

Michael Bay (Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, and a bunch of other crap) is the world's most horrific director, he makes me want to vomit all over myself. But if I wanted one movie to be over-the-top Hollywood, it would be Transformers. This film totally rocks.
Yes, a lot of it has to do with the fact that I played with them as a kid. If you don't know the toys/show from the 80's, the movie will probably suck. This is a big budget nostalgia-fest for children of the 80's, and it does that job very well. I had a great time. Optimus Prime's voice is so soothing, it takes me back to first grade, sitting in front of the television on a Saturday morning. Ah yes, Bumblebee, Starscream, Jazz, Megatron, the list goes on.
Of course the film lacks any depth whatsoever. It is here to entertain, and boy does it ever. Transformers is fun to watch, but also hilarious. So many great lines. Good times had by all. It does exactly what we expect it to do.
On the drive home, I actually thought that the film does a pretty good job of exemplifying an ancient religious system, Zoroastrianism (I am sure it is purely by coincidence). Zoroastrianism surfaced in the Ancient Near East about 500-700 bc. Zoroaster taught that the world was at war. This war was between the good god and the bad god (Ahura Mazda and Aura Manyu). Everyone on earth must choose a side, but the ultimate battle is really fought between the gods. In Transformers, the humans participate, but really they are just there because humans are the ones buying the tickets. The battle is really between the gods/robots. It is a cosmic battle, and only one side can win. The fate of the world hangs in the balance. So there you have it, an extremely simplified version of Zoroastrianism: Transformers.
But back to the explosions, car/robot chases, and one-liners. Shia LaBoeuf rocks in his role as the pathetic but eventually heroic teenager. Turturro is great. The rest of the cast is alright. There were a few disappointments, like the lack of "transforming" sounds from the original show (only one), the obnoxious product placement, and a few other nit-picky things. But all in all, Transformers delivers the entertainment goods to all of us who long to be nine again, if only for a few hours.

Ocean's 13

2007-06-21T13:18:00.000-06:00

Ocean's 11 had to be one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen. It is the epitome of fun. But then 12 came along, and was very disappointing. 13 is back on par with the first, an overall good time. Soderbergh scores again.
The thief dream-team is now living large, but when one of their good friends (Reuben) is screwed over by the new mogul in Vegas (Willie Bank - played by Al Pacino), Reuben is on his death bed. Thus, the guys decide to get together and take revenge, a dish that is best served cold. They decide to destroy Bank and his casino on opening night., which by the way is the most Uber-cool hotel ever. Let the plan and execution begin.
One thing I don't quite get about the Ocean's movies is how they pay all those incredibly famous actors (Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Pacino, Mac, Cheadle, etc. etc.). But I guess that's not up to me.
We all want to be these guys. We want to be rich, smart, and always in control. We want to be able to do whatever we want and get away with it. The "heroes" of the film are all bad guys, in that they are stealing and deceiving. Yet we love them, and we long to see them get away with it. Why is that? We are rooting for evil to triumph, and that's the way it' set up. There are times when we all wish we had the cahones to do something incredibly brash, like rob a casino and steal millions of dollars. Instead of doing this (hopefully), most of us just live vicariously through Ocean and his crew. But that begs the question: why do we desire this? That's an interesting thing to think about.
Although not as great as the epic joyride that is 11, Ocean's 13 entertains and makes us feel cool. As a sidenote, my favorite part had to be the Oprah scene, where Clooney is watching Oprah with a bottle of wine, crying. Pitt comes in and asks "were you watching Oprah!?" Then they both stare transfixed at the screen for what seems like minutes. Ah, how we all get sucked in to wasting time.

Breach

2007-06-15T17:13:00.000-06:00

Breach tells the story of Robert Hanssen, the most wanted spy in U.S. history. Hanssen (played incredibly by the wonderful Chris Cooper) has worked at the F.B.I. for nearly twenty-five years, and he has been selling secrets to the Russians for twenty. The U.S. government is on to him, but needs to catch him in the act to make sure the charges stick. Thus, they assign a young man working in the Bureau, Eric O'Neill (Ryan Phillippe) to babysit Hanssen. Sounds like an interesting idea for a movie, right? The most enthralling part is, it actually happened. The film starts with U.S. Attourney General John Ashcroft telling of Hanssen's arrest (so don't worry, I am not giving it away - the film is not about whether he is caught but how he is caught, and more importantly why he did it in the first place). Let the case begin.
This is a simple but wonderful film. It is straighforward, taut, and perfectly executed. Breach is a deep and thought-provoking character study. It is a shame it came out during the absolute worst time of the year for movies (February), because that takes away from its recognition. But at least we had one good film to watch.
Hanssen is a cold, distant, calculating man. He is a very devout Catholic, a family man, and a man who takes his job very seriously. O'Neill has a hard time finding anything wrong, and that is because Hanssen is a master at the game we all tend to play: leading a double life. Breach does a great job of showing us the extent to which people will go to deceive others. It is not that we must merely look underneath the surface to find the real Hanssen. We must look under the next layer, and the next, and the next. Hanssen became incredibly adept at something destructive and deplorable. He even had his wife fooled (in a pretty disturbing way, I might add). We should walk away from the film thinking about how we live two (or three, or four) lives, and how dangerous that is. Sometimes we even deceive ourselves. "Holistic" has become a buzz-word among Christians lately. It means living a life that is not compartmentalized; living for Christ in every aspect of your life all the time. Hanssen is the opposite of a holistic Christian, he has compartmentalized his life, and it has destroyed him and many others.
So why did he do it? Money? Probably not. I won't give it away, but the answer lies among the thorns of another trap we all fall into: pride.
Hanssen was a devout Catholic, as I mentioned earlier. He and his wife are focused, go to mass religiously, pray constantly, and discuss their faith openly. For the first half of the movie I thought we might for once get a positive view of a Christian from Hollywood, but then I remembered who Hanssen was. Was his faith all just a hoax, or did he truly believe? I believe the answer may lie in the final line of the film: "Pray for me." After being caught, Hanssen realizes he has nowhere to turn but to God. He did believe to some extent, though his faith did not turn to action all the time. It reminds me of Paul when he says in Romans 7:15 "What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate." He is discussing the sinful nature, and the struggle against the flesh that we all face. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. We all go down the path of sin from time to time, and the further you go, the harder it is to get back. Yet 1John talks about faith being action, and if we say we love God but hate our brother, we lie. So did Hanssen really believe? Good question. What should our faith look like?

Marie Antoinette

2007-06-07T20:59:00.000-06:00

Sofia Coppola is a rare commodity in the film community, a unique female voice. In her latest film, Coppola tells the story of the famous French/Austrian queen in a way that only another woman could. Marie Antoinette tells the story of a young Austrian princess (Kirsten Dunst) who is married off to the prince of France (Jason Schwartzman) just before the French Revolution. The Revolution is in the back of our minds, if we are familiar with the story, but that major historical event never takes center stage. Instead, the focus is on Marie, and how she copes with leaving her family at a young age.
What is a woman's role in 18th century France. What is a woman's role in the world at any time. The film investigates this idea to a great extent. Marie spends most of her time hanging out with her entourage, trying on clothes, and just frolicking in life. She does have hard times too though, especially the fact that everyone wants her to bear a son but her husband won't sleep with her (at times she is seen as little more than a baby factory). One scene in particular stuck out to me in regards to her search for identity. She had just given birth to her first child, a girl, and is playing with her. Marie wants to nurse her, but Marie's chambermaid takes her away and says "we have a nurse for that." What the crap? She can't be a mother? Marie is on a journey to find purpose, but sees hardly any at all. This brings up the point that our culture doesn't see being a mother as a "good enough" job for a woman to have. But the opposite is true, nothing could be more important than raising children.
Another aspect of French court life that sticks out is the ridiculously complicated ritual system. The servants and maids maintain an elaborate structure of "do's" and "don'ts" nearly every second of every day. It seems incredibly excessive, and this sheds light upon the causes for the Revolution. Even in the end, when the angry mob is outside the palace with pitchforks and torches, ready to skewer the royal family, the servants bring the wine glass of the king over on a silver platter. How often are we caught up in the daily in's and out's of our life, the meaningless rituals we perform, when there are far greater problems growing right outside our door (human suffering, lack of spiritual vitality, etc.). What a great scene, and a sad but great metaphor for our lives sometimes.
Marie Antoinette is a different kind of period piece. It is ornate and beautiful, but moves at a unique pace. It feels different. It feels very down to earth, which is ironic, considering the subject matter. We as the audience care deeply for the queen. We want her to be happy, and we sympathize with her. She is naive, fun, and definitely different than those around her. She brings a fresh voice to the French court. (As an interesting side note, this film would make a splendid comparison/contrast with The Queen) Marie Antoinette is quite enjoyable, even breathtaking at times. Another great outing from a great filmmaker.

Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End

2007-05-30T18:36:00.000-06:00

Why do the Pirates movies make zillions and zillions of dollars? I believe it must be the fact that it combines so many things so well: romance, adventure, comedy, and big movie stars. It's "candy for the mind." The first Pirates was darn good candy, but the second tasted like crap. The conclusion to the trilogy satisfies, though. When we left Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) he had just died, and was taken away to Davey Jones' Locker. Now Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swan (Kiera Knightly) and Captain Barbossa (freakin' awesome Geoffrey Rush) have gone to the edge of the world to get him back (all for different reasons, none of which includes missing Jack). The plot gets rather complicated, with so many rival factions fighting over so many different things, but if you just let it go a little, the ride is fun. The buildup is long, and a little dull, but the final dramatic sequence of events is quite stunning. Usually, I get bored during the climax of action movies when the big chase or shootout happens, because you know what is going to happen. I am more of a plot guy. But I have to say I was pleasantly suprised by Pirates 3. The two main ships end up fighting in the middle of a maelstrom (which is just a really cool word by itself) and it rocks. Rarely does an action sequence satisfy me, so that's saying something.
At World's End was also quite funny, especially when Sparrow is looking for his brain. The ending is immensely romantic. I won't give it away, but I had wished my wife was there so I had someone to hold. Overall, Pirates 3 is not a great film. It has no depth whatsoever, but it is above average for your standard summer fluff.
One thing that strikes me about this incredibly popular franchise is that there really aren't any "good guys." Ok, Will and Elizabeth are good people, but in terms of picking a side, all sides are evil. Pirates are horrible people, but the British are Colonialistic oppressors, and everyone else seems to be heavily involved in the Dark Arts (which is an interesting sub-topic in and of itself, ie the portrayal of Paganism and witchcraft in Pirates). Usually, in fantasy-style stories there are clear lines between good and evil. In "realistic" stories the lines are more fuzzy, because that's how people really are. Yet Pirates is in no way "realistic," which brings up the question: why do we cheer for the pirates? We want to be bad, don't we? We don't want rules, we want to make our own rules.
Now is the time of the year when we realize who has the most disposable income to spend on movies (13-17 year old males). Just look at all the movies that come out when school is out. It is a dry time for the thinking-man's film, or the artistic filmmaker's work, but it is a good time to just sit back and turn the old mind off for a few hours (three in this case). - [insert cheesy pirate saying here]

The Fountain

2007-05-13T20:03:00.000-06:00

Darren Aronofsky's (Requiem For A Dream, Pi) trippy love story weaves three parallel yarns at once. The focal point, or main thread, is this: Tomas (Hugh Jackman) is a scientist racing to find a cure for brain cancer, because his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz) is dying. Another tale is set in the past. This one tells the story of the Tree of Life (from the book of Genesis) which is found in Mayan Guatemala. A Mayan priest with a flaming sword guards the tree. The Spanish Queen (Weisz) sends one of her conquistadors (Jackman) to bring an elixer back, to save Spain. The last thread is other-worldly. Set in the future, Tomas is traveling inside a bubble with the tree to a dying nebula that the Mayan's considered the afterlife. This setting has many Buddhist and Hindu undertones, as well as beautiful imagery (pictured above).
All said and done, I believe The Fountain is about death. We as humans have always been afraid of death. It is the greatest unknown. The Fountain of Youth has been in the human psyche for centuries because it would conquer our greatest fear. Tomas is searching for the Fountain, the "cure" (or Tree, they are pretty much synonymous in the film) to save his dying wife. He does not want her to die. He searches for it in the present, in the past, and in the future. And like most guys, he wants to fix the problem. Death is a big problem. God knows we fear death. But Jesus conquered death; he's the only one to ever do so. So in essense, he is the Fountain of Youth (he calls himself the spring of living water, right?). Yet in this world death is inevitable. The struggle of the protagonist is the struggle we all have. We all want to conquer death. Will he be able to stop his wife from dying? Or must he come to terms with Izzi's death? Is there anything we lowly humans can do?
Tiffanie pointed out that the past and future stories are mediums for telling the "real story." The past is a dramatic retelling of the present, with all the adventure, mystery, and excitement of a good book. The future manifests itself as Tomas' character's spirituality played out in artistic form. The supernatural realm of the story, along with Tomas' mediation, invites insight and revelation. The guardian of the tree calls the spiritual Tomas "first father" and allows him to approach the tree. When Tomas greedily partakes of the sap, he forfeits himself for the new growth that springs from his body and overcomes his finite life (he cannot tame or wield eternal life to his desires; he cannot control life or death). Throughout the film, Izzy commands him to "finish it." After this epiphany, Tomas leaves his office, and the rush for the cure, to spend the last few hours of his wife's life loving and enjoying her. Tiff believes she was asking him to finish it in the true story, the real world. He sacrifices his desires to promote quality of life for her in her last moments here on earth.
The Fountain is romantic to its core. To what extent would you go for the one you love? Izzi gives Tomas purpose, but more so than just a problem to solve. There is a deep connection, and he will do anything to keep from losing it, from losing her. Are his efforts valiant? Is he just struggling against the inevitable? Or, will they still be together forever, even if she succumbs to the cancer?
The Fountain uses brilliant storytelling devices to play out a threefold narrative that captivates the audience's minds and hearts. This is beautiful, exquisite filmmaking.

Spider-Man 3

2007-05-09T18:50:00.000-06:00

Everyone knows Spider-Man. Sam Raimi's third installment has already broken every opening weekend box-office record and will go on to make zillions of dollars (although the records mean absolutely nothing because ticket prices keep going up, they need to base records on the number of people who go see a film). Anyway, Spidey 3 is all about Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) fighting his inner demons. Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) is about to be proposed to by Peter, so there is a magnifying glass on their relationship. Each of them ends up doing something to hurt the other, and they have to make big decisions. Throw in some Sandman (Thomas Hayden Church - who totally sucks by the way), who is the one who actually murdered Peter's Uncle back in Spidey 1. We also have Green Goblin Jr. (James Franco), who is still dealing with the death of his father. Then you've got the black goo (a symbiote) that comes from outerspace and latches on to Peter (then another guy later, who turns into Venom). The bad guys all want Spider-man dead. Peter is trying to figure out who he is, and what it takes to be a husband. MJ is thinking about whether she really wants Peter. Then there are a whole lot of really big CG effects, explosions, chases, etc.
In 3 everyone wants revenge. Peter wants to take revenge on the Sandman for killing his uncle. MJ wants to avenge the hurt she felt when Peter kisses another girl. The Sandman and Venom want revenge for how Spidey has humiliated them. Harry/Goblin Jr. wants to avenge his father's death. Everyone gets sucked into the pleasure and pain that is revenge. It is a prison that surrounds us and conquers us. Aunt may calls it a poison. We spend all our time and energy on it, but is it worth it? Should we really give all we have to it? Obviously Jesus wants us to forgive. But that is very, very hard sometimes. Yet, if we don't it will tear us apart (as is quite apparent in the film). When Peter finally forgives, he is freed from the prison of vengeance. A huge weight is lifted. It is hard, but we should follow that lead.
Another theme focused on in 3 is marriage. Peter's aunt tells him that a husband must put his wife before himself. Is Peter ready for that? The film makes it clear by the end that Peter can fight crime and save people, he can do the superhero thing. But it takes more to be a good husband, it takes more to have a good marriage. That should tell us something about who we give respect to in our society.
The best scene in the film takes place in a church. Peter is at the top, next to a ringing bell, and he is struggling against the symbiote (which becomes the black Spidey). He is struggling against his own sinful and fleshly nature. You see, the black Spidey makes Peter more confident and powerful, cocky if you will (and makes him look Emo). But this corrupts Peter, and it will corrupt all who try to wield it. The sinful nature is fun, but it ultimately destroys us and others. We all have a sinful nature, and there is a battle raging inside each one of us to overcome it. 3 does a great job of visualizing this. Ultimately he throws of his evil side, but we must recognize that it can never be done alone. In our lives, Jesus is the only one to free us from our fleshly desires. And he must continue to free us, day after day after day. It doesn't just go away once and for all. But as Aunt May says, we all have a battle raging inside of us, but we can choose to do what is right.
Overall, this third installment was less satisfying than the other two, yet still worth a good investigation. Why are we so enthralled with superheroes? It all goes back to wanting something bigger out of life, knowing that there has to be someting more. We want purpose, we want to save people, we want to make the world right (if only we had superpowers, right?). But I believe we can actualize these desires through our Saviour on a daily basis, with His help. But what does that look like?

Bobby

2007-05-08T21:59:00.000-06:00

Bobby recounts the last day of Robert F. Kennedy's life from the perspective of the guests and employees of the Ambassador Hotel, where he was shot. The film, written and directed by Emilio Estavez, has a gigantic cast (too many to mention, really). The film follows the now vogue mosaic template, telling many stories that interweave throughout the narrative. There are racial tensions in the kitchen, political ambitions among the youngsters, marital problems involving famous performers, and business decisions to be made. The storyline is interesting, and the plot follows many different perspectives/viewpoints. It culminates with a tragedy we all know is coming, but the weight of it hits us a little harder than we thought it would.

Ecclesiastes states that we should not say "remember the good old days." Whether its baseball or children respecting their elders, it seems that everyone has a nostalgic love of the past, back when things were the way they should be. Sometimes I found myself wondering if the film was falling into that category. It is hard to not see Bobby as propaganda. It is in effect saying "Bobby Kennedy could have made everything right." As one character states, since Dr. King was shot Bobby was everyone's last hope. We must be careful to not get overly sentimental, and idealize people or events of the past. That being said, Kennedy was doing a lot of great things. The film reminds us of what America was like in 1968 and how things were right at the edge of change. Everything seemed to be hanging in the balance, ready to break out. Bobby recreates history in a different way than we are used to, through the eyes of many on one day as opposed to through the eyes of a few over a great number of days.

Everyone had all their hopes and dreams tied up in Robert Kennedy, and when he died, so did those ideas. Bobby was the savior, the "last great man" of the time. What happens when we put our hope in a human being, no matter how great that human is? We are disappointed. No man or woman can ever be the savior of mankind. There is only one savior, and yes he was a man, but he was also fully God. We all have fallen into the trap of putting more stock in a person than we should. In fact, we do it frequently. But it is dangerous. We must be constantly reminded to put all our trust in the only one who will never fall short, never let us down.

Bobby died. Jesus died. I would imagine that after the crucifiction Jesus' followers felt a lot like Bobby's followers after the shooting. What happened to our leader? How could he die? Not now, not yet.

Top Ten 2006

2007-05-01T17:44:00.000-06:00

It's a tradition that every year the critics come out with what they think are the top ten films of the year. They get free passes to see all the films in the theaters before the end of the calendar year (I'm jealous). I have to wait to see many of the films on DVD, poor me. This is why it has taken me an extra four months, but better late than never. Now, there were over 350 movies released last year and I haven not seen them all. It's pretty easy to tell what is going to suck without having to sit through it (ie. Basic Instinct 2, Annapolis, The DaVinci Code, Deck The Halls, and oh yeah, The Guardian, etc.). Sadly, I did waste my time with some crap films I thought would be pretty good (ie. The Night Listener, MI:3, All The King's Men). Overall, this year was not great, though the films at the top of the list are. I would say it was a little bit below mediocre, actually. Still, I always have fun telling everyone my opinion and making a list, so here we go.

10. Catch A Fire

Philip Noyce's political thriller of Apartheid South Africa shows a human side of terrorist motivation (humiliation). It is extremely important for us to see things from other perspectives, even if we disagree with those perspectives. Also, the struggle of a husband/father was especially intriguing to me. Derek Luke was fantastic too, by the way.

9. Half Nelson

First off, Gosling gives the best performance of the year by anyone, hands down. He's the man. When I first saw the film I was frustrated. But the sign of a good film is that you think about it for days, investigating the intricacies and contemplating the subtelties. There are oceans of depth here, especially in regards to morality and human beings' ability to change.

8. Prairie Home Companion

This film just made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, moreso than any movie I have seen in a long time. Maybe it's because I grew up listening to Garrison Keillor on tape. Or maybe it's that, in his final film, Robert Altman captures the very essense of nostalgia, for good and ill. Should we hang on to the past? How much? How do we go forward? Plus, overall the film was unique, and the music was quite engaging.

7. Blood Diamond

Edward Zwick's African political thriller brought me to tears at the end (see my review, the Father/Son relationship and its parallel to the Prodigal Son/our relationship to God, etc.). Solomon Vandy gave the African people dignity, instead of us white people saying that they are all hopeless and need us to come save them. The political statements are important, but what drives the film is its relationships, specifically Archer's inner struggle between good and evil, and Vandy's unrelenting love for his son.

6. The Queen

The best biopic in a long time. Mirren is unbelievable good, so is Sheen as Tony Blair. The directing is picturesque, and Frears walks the tightrope very well. He shows both sides of this stately and reclusive figure. We sympathize with her, we sympathize with the people, we see her flaws, we see the people's flaws; it is balanced and fair. I went in thinking I should see it because it could be nominated for Best Pic, and left stunned at how good the film turned out to be. What is leadership? What should it look like? How are the times changing? What is English?

5. The Fountain

This was a tragically overlooked film. It is a beautiful, breaktaking love story that takes place along three parallel tracks, in three very different settings. Can love conquer death? This is a wonderfully original and deftly creative film.

4. Lady In The Water

I usually agree with the critics, but the critics were all idiots when it came to Shyamalan's latest. What a powerful story of the power of story. Love, Sacrifice, and above all Purpose. A tale beautifully spun, as only Night can do, the movie moves me more and more with every viewing.

3. Flags Of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima

Is it cheating to put two films together in one spot? Yes, usually, but here no. They are two pieces to one film, one epic story of war from two vastly different perspectives/cultures/languages/experiences. You can't have one without the other. This is Eastwood's crowning achievement, a beautiful masterwork. It reminds us of what humanity is.

2. The Departed

Is it wrong that it's just so enjoyable to watch this Scorsese Best Pic winner? I have seen it more times than any other film on the list, thus far. In terms of moviemaking, it is flawless (acting, directing, writing, cinematography, score, pacing, etc., etc.). I don't have a favorite part, I have ten favorite parts (all Wahlberg's scenes, all Baldwin's scenes, the list goes on). Marty is the man, the master. But there are deeper themes at work here. How do you walk the line between good and evil? What does it do to someone to live a double life? What is the nature of crime?

1. Children Of Men

The most moving filmgoing experience I have had in years. This one may creep on to my all-time top 10. It is the very definition of hope. Their world is hopeless, there is nothing worth living for, the graffiti says "Last one to die, please turn out the lights." What is hope? What do children mean to us as a society? To us as individuals? Is childbirth an "everyday miracle"? The film is bleak, stark, and beautiful. The cinematography is flawless and revelatory (should have won the Oscar), the story is gripping, the acting is great, and the picture draws you in. As I said before, I have never wanted a happy ending so much in my life. God is all over the place in this film. It deeply moved me. This is moviemaking perfection.

So there it is. Give me your thoughts, opinions, lists, arguments, agreements, etc. Just for fun, I will be publishing my top tens from the last few years as well. Sometimes I hate lists because it tends to degrade great films just because they are not number one, but on the other hand, I love competition.

The New World

2007-04-30T08:23:00.000-06:00

This film has been out a while but it should be remembered, lest we forget its beauty. The New World is written and directed by a unique voice in film, Terrence Malick (The Thin Red Line). The film follows the well-known storyline of John Smith and Pocahontas. Smith, played by Colin Farrell, is part of the original English voyage to the Americas, in 1607. He and the rest of the British encounter the Naturals in this new and foreign land. There is much debate on either side as to what to do (peace/war, friends/enemies, etc.). When Smith is taken captive and sentenced to death he is saved by a young princess, Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). Thus begins a tale of love, romance, and cultural divides (much like Romeo and Juliet). A quick warning: the film is slow, more of a meditation than an entertaining story. It is nothing if not unique.
The relationship between Smith and Pocahontas is an interesting one. They seem to throw off their own cultures and "fall in love." This makes them want to give up everything for each other. Yet they both feel a keen sense of duty to their own people. But their relationship reminds us of what is essential to humanity. What do they have in common, these two people from completely different worlds? What does it mean to be human? Christian Bale enterst the story later as a great example of a patient, Christ-like husband who ends up marrying Pocahontas and loving her, even after she finds out Smith is still alive (she thought he was dead). That relationship is fascinating as well.
They also come from different worldviews/spiritual understandings of the way the world works. Malick is careful to be respectful of both cultures, keeping a fly-in-the-wall view of each. He makes no judgments upon their ideas. He keeps us in the past, and stays far away from commentary on where this will all lead. He forgets what he knows about the world now, and helps us to have fresh and innocent eyes when looking upon this time in human history. But what of the spiritual worlds? Are they compatible? Are they essentially the same, or radically different? Do we as the "white western" Christianity have God completely figured out, or could we learn something from these Naturals? What could we learn? Where might they lead us astray though? We should find the balance between demonizing and idealizing this peoplegroup, as we should with all peoplegroups.
Malick's final sequence holds a profound understanding of God, and His "bigness." The film ends with Pocahontas visiting England and interacting with its people and society. The music swells to a beautiful crescendo, whilst she frolicks in the man-made gardens of this new land. Pocahontas muses to herself throughout the film about "the Spirit," wanting to learn from it and be open to it. Could this Spirit be God Himself? She connects with it in her native land, but seems wary in England. Yet she eventually comes to the understanding that the Spirit is bigger than lands/places/peoples. She can commune with this Spirit even in a Western and man-made world. This reminds us that God is big, bigger than anything we could understand. We all know that we put Him in a box, everyone does. It's nearly impossible not to. But he can break through all the boxes we put him in. How do we see God for who He really is, without all the restrictions that we put on Him? It's impossible to some extent, yet prayer must not be underestimated. God help us to stop putting you in a box.
Visually and stylistically, The New World is ethereal, surreal, and poetic. Malick has a distinct style, which comes across through the beautiful cinematography, meditative musings of the characters, and stunning lighting and colors. The way the film is shot also reminds us to find beauty and truth in everything (the little things, the wind blowing in the grass, the sunsets, fishing, the runing of a stream). This world that God created is utterly beautiful; it should take our breath away. Let us not take it for granted. The New World gives us a patient and poetic eye, letting us see the world the way we should.

Hot Fuzz

2007-04-24T10:14:00.000-06:00

Ah, what a good time. Every once in a while you just need to make fun of something. Edgar Wright's latest is a rollicking good time of a spoof on cop dramas. The team from Shaun of the Dead assembles again for over-the-top mayhem and hilarity. Simon Pegg is a supercop from London who is sent to the country because he is so good at his job that everyone else looks bad. When he gets to this picture-perfect village of Sanford, he is quickly paired up with a cop-movie obsessed nerdball (Nick Frost). Nick Angel (Pegg) quickly tries to arrest pretty much everyone for every little thing, but the town is very proud of their "safest village in England"status and will do anything to protect it. Thus, a battle of beaurocracy ensues. Eventually, that battle gets bloody and all the big guns come out, and they jump through the air while firing two guns "just like in the movies." Its absolutely gruesome, and unbelievably funny.

I love cop films, and I love to make fun of cop films. The fact is, there is a lot to make fun of. And Hot Fuzz does a great job of making everyone look like idiots. We need a sense of humor, it makes life more bearable. We have to learn to laugh at ourselves. We are all pretty weird. Let's not take ourselves too seriously. Hot Fuzz is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. The Brits really know how to make me laugh. Not a whole lot of "deep thought" on this review, just want to encourage you to see a different style of comedy and have a grand old time.