Archive for the ‘Movies and film’ Category

REVIEW – "Moon" (2009)

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?

It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.

For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.

The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.

“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.

The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).

Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.

But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.

I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.

But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).

But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?

The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***

(more…)

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

REVIEW – "The Princess and the Frog"

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

Yes I saw it. Almost said “you can go without me”. Glad I went.

A tradition in my family has always been to go see a movie on a holiday – like Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s. So we went to see recent Disney release “The Princess and the Frog”.

It was delightful. Especially when you compare it to the stream of movies from Hollywood that basically insult the audience. If you pay attention there are a few welcome “conservative” themes and messages in “The Princess and the Frog”. It will be interesting to see how it fares at the box office compared to the other left-leaning fare.

***WARNING – A FEW MILD SPOILERS***

Prince Naveen is the rich aristocrat who is no longer very rich. All he wants is to avoid work and have fun.

His servant Lawrence is the one who envies what Naveen has. And wants to steal it through trickery and deception.

And Tiana is the one who has a dream. And believes the way to achieve her dream is through hard work and saving every dollar she can.

Imagine that! If you want something – you work for it. Rather than expect the government or *ahem* the forces of evil – represented by the Shadow Man – to give you what you want by taking it someone else.

There may be some subtle commentary on “haves versus have-less”. The film does not appear to criticize Big Daddy for being so wealthy. In fact it recognizes the simple fact that rich people hire and pay other people to do things like make dresses (Tiana’s mother Eudora) for their spoiled daughters or make beignets (Tiana) for a masked Mardi Gras ball. Big Daddy is rich but he is generous and his wealth supports such cultural activities as a Mardi Gras parade.

And – trying not to give away too much here – what happens to Doctor Facilier aka Shadow Man in the end? He plays with the forces of darkness – “friends on the other side” – and ultimately he pays the price. There are consequences for messing with spiritual forces of evil.

This is not to suggest the movie is full of orthodox Christian theology. There are no references to God or Christ or scripture. At most we get “good magic” in the person of Mama Odie versus “bad magic” in the person of Doctor Facilier (whose name oddly enough means “Doctor Make-easy”). And several times characters seem to “pray” to a star in the night sky. This is not a criticism. Just trying to recognize how religion and spirituality are portrayed.

In a way I find refreshing how the film addresses(?) race relations. People of darker skin can have genuine friendship with people of lighter skin. Although it does not ignore altogether that racial tensions can and do exist – such as when the bankers refer to Tiana’s “background”.

What is interesting is that Disney has gone back to old fashioned drawn animation. I thought they had shut down their drawn animation department in order to focus exclusively on computer animation. My argument then as well as now is “it’s not the computer animation – it’s the story stupid”. Disney seems finally to get that point. But drawn animation might strike some as ugly and primitive compared to “Toy Story” or “Up”. The comparison is unfair. But not if you compare it to the work of Hiyao Miyazaki or even the exceptionally beautiful “Snow White”.

Critics often focus on the music – and sure enough characters in the movie often break into song. Are they “memorable” or Oscar-winning? Only time will tell. Some of the songs are quite catchy – such as “Dig A Little Deeper” which my wife used in her sermon this morning.

Finally – Louisiana.

The story is set in New Orleans and the Louisiana bayous. Having lived in the south for a while I am sensitive to how “southern accents” are portrayed – you would think every southerner speaks in a South Carolina drawl. Most of the accents and speech patterns in “The Princess and the Frog” sound correct. Some are not quite right. But in order to establish the setting – New Orleans and Louisiana – one must expect some degree of exaggeration for the sake of emphasis.

One concern(?) is that people who do not live in Louisiana might not appreciate all the inside jokes. Like when Ray the Cajun firefly introduces all the members of his immense extended family. Or when Ray asks Naveen and Tiana where they are from – the answer is perhaps only to Louisianans one of the funniest lines in the entire movie (the audience erupted in laughter). Or how the name of the love of Ray’s life is “Evangeline”.

Overall an animated film I can heartily recommend.

"Avatar" and other movies that make you throw up(?)

Friday, November 27th, 2009

I have my reasons for not liking James Cameron. But the concept of and trailers for the new “Avatar” movie did get my interest. However came across an early anonymous review (caveat lector – how reliable is this?) which included the following:

The new technology they’ve been using to eliminate the headaches and sickness conducive to old 3D tech has not been used properly in the action scenes throughout Avatar.  The problem is with cutting in between 3D focal points and perspective – the mind cannot adjust to it without a buffer – thus, Avatar is literally vomit inducing.

This particularly gets my attention because of an experience my family had a couple years ago. In Upstate New York to visit my mom -my sisters and my brother and his family were all there. We have a long family tradition of seeing movies together especially on holidays. So our July 4th movie was the disappointing “Hancock” starring Will Smith.

My brother and his daughter had to cover their eyes for most of the film because the constantly moving camera (shaking around, moving in a circle around the target, and so on) made them extremely nauseous. Basically two hours of misery and not being able to enjoy the movie. Did not seem to bother anyone else in the theater. But apparently some people are susceptible to that sort of thing – such as one encounters in many first-person video games. That his daughter had the same problem suggests it might be genetic.

I wonder how much movie makers are aware of this problem. I wanted to tell the theater manager about this so they might include some sort of warning to film-goers. Of course they might hesitate because it could hurt ticket sales.

H/T Big Hollywood and Guardian (UK).

The glory of human freedom in "Minority Report"

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Last night was planning to get to bed early but “Minority Report” was on. Tried to find the dvd version – was the very first dvd we owned a gift from two ministry volunteers – but no joy. So just watched it on television until midnight.

There are few things that get under my skin quite so much as losing something.

You remember “Minority Report” right? Science-fiction movie directed by Steven Spielberg based on a short story by the great Philip K Dick. Have you noticed how many successful movies have been based on stories by Dick? (As well as a couple real turkies.)

As I watched I realized not for the first time what an exceptional movie it is. No matter how goofie you think Tom Cruise is dang does he deliver an excellent performance in that film. Notice the constant theme of “seeing” and “eyes” and “not seeing”. Even a passing advertisement in the background reinforces the theme.

Can you see?

In a nutshell the story-now-film addresses directly freedom and guilt. Can you arrest and imprison someone because they were going to commit murder – but have not done so yet?

Anderton (Cruise) rolls a ball around the table which Witwer (Colin Farrell) catches.

“Why did you catch it?”

“Because it was going to fall”.

“How do you know that?”

The argument of course is facile. Human beings are not balls. But Anderton somehow gets away with it and Witwer does not push back at that time.

There are two moments of utter glory – when you realize what the issue is. Do human beings have choice aka free will?

The precogs see a premeditate murder – 36 hours away. The killer is – to his shock and horror – John Anderton himself. The victim is someone he has never seen or met or heard of. But sure enough… eventually… he finds the man and concludes yes he must kill him.

Agatha – the most gifted of the precognitives whom Anderton has liberated in order to gain information from her – says “you have a choice”. We do not believe it. Anderton does not believe it. They have already seen it. He is going to kill Leo Crow.

But somehow – and the film does not really quite explain why or how – Anderton does not pull the trigger. His watch alarm goes off. What the precognitives foresaw does not happen.

He has a choice. And Anderton made that choice – to arrest but not to kill.

(And at the end Burgess chooses not to kill Anderton but instead himself. The opposite of what the precognitives foresaw.)

The issue of human freedom and free will is one that has become increasingly important to me. It comes up a great deal in the literature of Tolkien. And a cornerstone of Orthodox theology is its insistence that humans have free will. They do not deny the sovereignty of God or providence or grace. But never ever can such teachings eclipse the reality of human freedom.

(Some of those who read this website lean toward Calvinist or “reformed” theology. My intent is not to insult or start an argument. I am not arguing against something so much as arguing for.)

Think about other books by Philip Dick. Which often deal with “what does it mean to be human?” and “what truly defines who we are?” Dick – fairly consistently – seems to argue in his stories and novels that we are defined by the concrete choices we make. (Think about “Total Recall”. Quaid is “fated” to go back to being a scumball criminal agent. But he refuses. He has already chosen a different path. And he does not go back.)

"As long as it takes" -> Washington Rebel

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Been watching “Constantine” this evening. Utter rubbish theologically. But strangely compelling.

There is a scene that I thought both interesting and illustrative. Angela wants to see what her twin sister saw. So Constantine has her get into a bathtub filled with water. And submerge herself entirely. This makes her nervous. How long will she have to stay under the water?

“As long as it takes” replies Constantine.

He gently places his hand upon her chest. She waits for something to happen. She waits. And she waits. Eventually she becomes concerned. He does not remove his hand. She tries to get out of the water. He holds her down. She begins to fight him. Despite her now desperate struggles he continues to hold her under the water.

Is this how it works? He holds her down until she drowns? And only then she sees what her sister saw?

Actually no. The scene ends differently. But here is the point.

At the same time I was browsing around on my computer and somehow ended up at “Washington Rebel” which is not entirely easy to understand but if you get past some of the occasional strange pictures is one of the more interesting conservative blogs I have seen. Several items attempt to analyze what is happening in the United States and the very real danger we are in.

Which brings me back to “Constantine”.

I wonder if we have been under the water for quite some time. And that hand upon our chest no longer feels quite so gentle or benign.

REVIEW – "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Twilight er I mean Prince"

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Perhaps my favorite book in the series I was looking forward greatly to “Harry Pottery and the Half Blood Prince”. There were times during the movie I wanted to take a short nap – and not just because I was coming down with something. But at other times I was alternately thrilled entranced and moved.

Does does one start with the negative or the positive? (You may be interested to know a few weeks back we had an English Conversation lesson that centered on movie reviews. Turns out that our Chinese friends almost never go see a movie at the theater. Very expensive in China and movie theaters are dying out. We took a delightful teenager from Church of the Nations who had never been to the movies and had never had popcorn.

Oh right. Movie reviews. Apparently nearly all movie reviews follow a certain pattern and structure – sort of like a Pauline letter or a lament Psalm.)

There are at least two strong primary criticisms. First – the movie departs considerably from the book and often in ways that make for a weaker story. We are not surprised when we find out how Draco Malfoy enables… uh… people to get in… at the end of the film. (Trying hard not to give anything away.) In the book we are surprised. “Oh – so that is what he had been doing”. The budding relationships are resolved rather early and again not in the sudden “oh my!” moment one finds in the book. Surprise and unexpected moments of glory and delight are far more interesting.

Second – and this relates to the first – the movie is astonishingly slow. Boring even. More specifically large sections in the middle (not the beginning or the end). And for some reason tries to focus heavily on all the romantic developments and entanglements. To the point that the movie is almost more about “Harry and friends snog and get snogged” than it is about the growing threat of Voldemort and the efforts by Harry and Dumbledore to defeat him. My wife thought they were trying to borrow a page from “Twilight”. As they say in the film “excuse me – I have to go vomit”. The cutesy attempts at humor often fall flat. There is cheese in this film.

Now granted perhaps some of the above was unfortunate consequences of having to take a long and very well developed story (with multiple layers) and sending it through that meat grinder also known as “producing a screenplay somewhere between two and three hours”.

The whole anti-relationship between Potter and Snape is left out entirely. Which is a shame because Alan Rickman steals nearly every scene in which he briefly appears. Watch Rickman’s face toward the beginning during and after the “unbreakable vow”. The man is a master of the craft and further evidence that the British understand drama and acting far more than the Americans. (Sorry if that offends some people.) Rickman (with the script) also takes Snape “down a notch” – less harsh and more difficult to despise. (As if foreshadowing the next/last book.)

The movie opens well. A bloodied and shattered Potter being mobbed by the press. Potter reading in a train station cafe. The attack on London. The scenes evoke well the sense of tension and growing menace.

The quidditch match – utterly delightful. Although you gotta admit… is anyone else struck by how um… odd… male players look on those broomsticks? especially as they are vying for female attention? (Think about it.) (They can take out the whole “Potter in detention” subplot but not the stupid puberty love theme?*)

*(If you do not know that is a reference to the classic “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”.)

The scene in the cavern… I felt like an invisible hand was squeezing my chest the whole time. Chilling and frightening. One person in the theater actually cried out loud when… And to see Dumbledore “unleashed”. For a brief shining moment we see just how powerful he is. (Let us come back to that.) Extremely well done.

One change from the book that is positive is how the movie focuses much more on Draco Malfoy. By the end of the movie we cannot hate him. We pity him. And during the film we are permitted to see the emotional turmoil and anguish Malfoy experiences as he tries to carry out (most half-heartedly) his dreadful mission. He is… a different kind of Judas?

There are some “theological” themes I could get into. Many suggest that Harry is a kind of “Christ” figure especially in the final film. (This is not to suggest Rowling was engaging in cheap allegory.) But in this film… there is much about obedience and trust. Not blind obedience – but obedience to someone that one knows from experience one can trust.

“Are you going to ask me why we are here Harry?”

“No sir. At this point I just sort of go with it”.

Precisely.

If Harry is the “son” who obeys his surrogate “Father” – what of the scene where the “Father” is the one who must drink the cup that cannot be taken away? where the “Father” sacrifices himself in order to help defeat the enemy? But this fits my personal view (literary theory?) that characters can move from archetypal role to archetypal role all within the same story or film. (Consider Max in “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome”. The rogue/scoundrel becomes the Savior/Liberator. Go figure.)

There is more we can explore – but perhaps that is enough for now.

Anyways – do see it. But I so wish they left out all that silly teenage “romance” rubbish.

Addendum:

There are two reviews at Big Hollywood – one more positive and one more negative – that seem to make many of the same points that I do. But they write so much better than I.

John Nolte, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (more negative)

Andrew Leigh, “‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’: An Alternate View” (more positive)

REVIEW – "Up"

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

I thought “The Incredibles” was simply the most perfect brilliant film Pixar has produced.

Somehow they managed to move the bar even higher. Or should we say deeper.

I thought it was exceptional. Alternating between touching and funny, exhiliterating and profound. The opening ten minutes – which lead to the “present” in which most of the film takes place – is almost unmatched for its beauty and emotional depth.

And no one says anything.

This is particularly important when you are watching the movie with two Americans on your left and two Chinese visiting scholars on your right. The ones on the right might not understand every word – in movies by and for native English speakers the dialogue is fast and full of colloquialisms. And so to convey a story visually – one notices that.

How much can a movie convey without the burden of excessive dialogue or overwhelming music. One thing I have noticed about many American films is how much they employ the soundtrack to tell you what you should be feeling. Cue those violins! Blare those trumpets! Pound those drums! Be sad! Be thrilled! Be frightened!

Which is not to deny that “Up” does incorporate music – and very well. The gentle piano tune that runs through most of the film. But I do not think it is the music itself that says “feel this way now” as much as it helps unite certain thematic elements and parts of the story.

The visuals – especially once the movie is in South America – are remarkable. And the small touches – such as when at last the house drifts off… into the clouds. Nice touch.

There is more meaning and thought in the movie than one can describe. How many issues and questions and situations in life does the film explore? Love. Friendship. Adventure. Dreams. Fame. Honor. Shame. Status. Power. Death. Age. Youth. Family. Parents. Marriage. Childlessness. Disappointment. Loss. Attachment. Freedom… one hardly knows where to stop. There is a tremendous amount of thought in the film. Like the finest of novels that grow gradually and out of years of wisdom and experience.

And yet part of the brilliance of the film – and this I want to emphasize – is that it does not club you over the head with these things. The characters do not sit around talking about aging and dying and grief and so on. The story… happens. And in the story with its characters (of course) the meaning is there for us to consider and explore.

And the small funny touches. I admire and appreciate details. Like the dogs. We have a dog. We love our dog very much. And the dogs in the movie… that is just what dogs are like. Squirrel! I hate squirrels! We can make our dog want to go outside (usually) just by saying “Skippy – get the squirrel!”

The voice of alpha dog. The chatter between the pilots when they first attack the house. (Very nice touch. Very nice indeed.) I thought the whole dining scene was hysterial. “Nice choice” and then they open and pour – and drop – the bottle. Carl’s beard.

And yes there is theology – there is the “gospel” – in this movie. But let me come back to that later. We leave for our first real family holiday (no funerals family or conferences) tomorrow. And I am not taking my computer.

You did notice that last sentence right?

A few last comments.

When I first saw the trailers for “Up” I thought “This looks stupid. Oh please I do not want Pixar to churn out a turkey. A flying house?!? You gotta be kidding me”. Nearly everyone I know who has seen the movie says the same thing. Indeed – look at the movie posters. How much do they tell you? (This issue will be raised in English Conversation next June 12 – a lesson that focuses on movie reviews.)

That is why I chose the poster above rather than the more popular one with Russell and Carl. Just a house floating through the skies.

I have seen many movies by Hiyao Miyazaki. And this one might reflect some influence(?) more than any other Pixar movie I have seen. How many Miyazaki films take place largely in the air (or sky)? And what does that mean?

REVIEW – "Terminator Salvation"

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

In a nutshell – I thought it was much better than the mediocre or even negative reviews led me to expect.

I read enjoy and respect Big Hollywood. John Nolte was not kind to “Terminator Salvation”.

What a crushing and noisy disappointment this is. For whatever reason, Director McG’s fourth chapter in the “Terminator” franchise tosses aside the simple but successful plot template that made its predecessors so memorable and goes all “Bourne” with a hyper-complicated plot, narcissistic “hero” and a big fat wide blur between the concept of good battling evil. Yes, welcome to Hollywood’s post-Bush “Terminator,” where a militaristic Resistance demands we “Stay the course,” Terminators work through their feelings, and John Connor runs off to find himself only to end up in a numbingly dull third act that plays like a direct-to-DVD toss off.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

I still respect Nolte of course. But I enjoyed the film. I did not think it was as sullen and dull and lacking-in-warmth as many critics (not just Nolte) argued. My daughter rather pithily commented, “If people want warmth they should watch a chick flick”. (Hey um Big Hollywood? Got an opening for a twelve year old?) I thought the story was engaging. The pacing tense. Some of the acting genuinely touching.

Let me offer a couple quick and mild criticisms centering on the character of Marcus Wright.

{WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!}

He is indeed a sympathetic character. But believable? This person was sentenced to death for the murder of his brother and two police officers. How then does this person come off as so noble and selfless? Is it programming?

And the movie never quite explains just how that whole “Marcus gives his body to science [read Cyberdyne] and ends up working for Skynet” thing works. Is the doctor sent back in time by Skynet? Is she human? If so – what does she think she is doing? Was it an experiment in making benign cyborgs that gets coopted by Skynet? This part of the plot is just too full of holes to ignore.

Now – I understand why more conservative reviewers think there is a post-Bush dig on the war against terror. “They are the machines. We are human. We are supposed to behave like humans”. Fair enough.

But is it that obvious? And is there a counterargument? Do conservatives wish to argue that… argue what exactly? Do we not often argue that one of the problems with liberalism is that too often liberalism assumes the end justifies the means? That results do not matter only motives? (“Well we are trying to help the poor. Does not matter if the result is generations of broken families enmeshed in poverty”.)

Moreover – does not the movie imply that we are defined by our decisions more than our nature? Do we not often argue that liberals emphasize too much “this is what you are” – as if background and ethnicity and orientation determine destiny? Is it not conservatives who tend to argue “yeah sure that is who you are and where you are from – but you have a choice“? And that is precisely the point of Marcus Wright.

Marcus breaks free from his destiny. He chooses against his programming. “There is no fate but what you make”. Surely conservatives can celebrate that!

Anton Yelchin (as Kyle Reese) is much better here than in “Star Trek” (where the Russian navigator Chekhov cannot pronounce the phoneme v). I admit that Kate Connor’s pregnancy is completely and strangely ignored.

I think the movie deserves better than the 33% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. If you enjoy the “Terminator” movies – see it! You do not have to wait for the DVD.

REVIEW – "Star Trek"

Friday, May 8th, 2009

Wow.

Personally I thought it was fantastic – primarily in terms of “when you sat there watching it did you enjoy it?” Exciting. Touching at times. (Got choked up in a couple spots – I refuse to show tears in front of my wife. If I can help it.) And unexpectedly funny – laughed all over the place.

Kirk well done. Spock very well done. McCoy perhaps my favorite. Pike well done.

Later I will add some not-quite-profound reflections. Let me shift to a few criticisms.

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!

(more…)