MovieWatch Blog

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium

When my sister insisted on Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium at a family movie night, I had my misgivings. It sounded so juvenile. But what a treat met my eyes and ears even from the opening titles. It is a kid’s movie, but the kind of kid’s movie which offers a healthy perspective on growing up, presenting a wealth of observations about life that will keep the whole family discussing it for days. Though its silly moments may seem tedious to older viewers, its characters are pure and its story is rich with themes of love, legacy, and using your gifts. Best of all, perhaps, is Dustin Hoffman in the title role – his performance elevates a potentially childish script to a cinematic delight.

Molly Mahoney is stuck. The one-time piano prodigy, and now reluctant grown-up, has been writing her first symphony for years, but is still drawing a blank. She has a sneaking suspicion that it is time to resign herself to the “real” world, even if it means giving up her dream of being a composer or leaving her old job at the local toy store for a more “serious” career. But employer/mentor Mr. Magorium has other plans. The Wonder Emporium is a store like no other, and its magic lies not only in the impossible and fantastic toys which inhabit it, but in the sense of wonder and humanity that Magorium himself encourages in Mahoney and the others in the store: a no-nonsense accountant and a lonely, credulous nine-year-old. Grandfatherly and oddly childlike, Magorium works his spell even on viewers well above the film’s intended audience, reminding us, like John Eldridge in this century, or Tolkien in the last, of the importance of myth and magic in real life, that dreams do come true, and that a store is never “just” a store. By the time Magorium’s work in this life is done, Mahoney and friends have regained a sense of awe in ordinary things, learned belief in the power of dreams, and gained the courage to color outside the lines.

The casting of the characters is brilliant. Natalie Portman well deserves a second look after her attachment to the dreadful Star Wars prequels; she is truly in her element here, giving a touching performance opposite a father-figure rather than a romantic lead. Character actor Jason Bateman (Arrested Development) delivers his trademark laconic wit as the Doubting-Thomas figure – an accountant eager to erase his childhood. Most lovable of all is Mr. Magorium. As he has done in such roles as Willy Loman and Raymond Babbit, Dustin Hoffman imbues the 243-year-old toymaker with a depth that adult viewers will marvel at.

The film is truly G-rated and family friendly, with writer/director Zach Helms showing us that Hollywood can present characters who are funny without being crass, and honest without being gritty. Apart from a reference to reincarnation spoken in relation to Magorium’s death, the film says little about life that a Christian must object to. The film’s politically correct statement of “believe in yourself” does not overwhelm the far more wholesome themes of living life to the fullest, using one’s gifts, and of touching the lives of others; I venture to say that Zach Helms would make a better Christian than a humanist, though he does not yet know it. For when it is a believer’s time to depart may we not echo Mahoney’s hasty reaction, “you have to live,” but respond with Magorium’s quiet assurance that, “Darling, I have.”

A kid’s movie? In the truest sense. A mediocre script? Probably. But the strong and lovable characters are honest reflections of my own life’s struggles. It is they, if not the story itself, that keeps me coming back to this movie. I can only look with anticipation toward Helms’ next film as he grows as a writer.

Tobin

I felt much the way Tobin did when I sat down the first time to watch Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium with Megan. I didn’t really want to be there and had no interest in seeing the movie BUT, I was willing to “take one” for my daughter. I was actually disappointed the first time we watched it. I felt embarrassed for Dustin Hoffman to be playing such a role. However, in spite of my original misgivings I walked away at the end of the movie not feeling particularly cheated.

Then when Tobin came home on vacation, we watched the movie again as a family. I was surprised at myself when I found out how engaged I was with the characters and moved by the story. I noticed things that I hadn’t seen in the first viewing. I picked up on many brilliant details that I had missed before. AND, I appreciated the character that Mr. Hoffman had created much more. I was very pleased at how much better the movie had become. In fact, I found it quite delightful.

While there is plenty to please the eye of the obvious children’s market, there is much to think about on an adult level as well. Themes of loneliness and friendship are prevalent. Henry (Jason Bateman) has devoted his life to making sure that everyone’s paperwork is all in order to the exclusion of any friendships. Eric (Zach Mills) is a very lonely but personable 9 year old. Against a backdrop of a brilliant choice of music (Don’t be Shy by Cat Stevens—one of my favorite songs of all time) Eric reaches out to Henry for a game of checkers…which Henry is too busy with paperwork to oblige.

Ultimately, I found the film to be quite engaging and, with the exception of a mild re-incarnation reference, it’s an excellent family movie. Repeated viewings will reveal the beautiful detail woven into the story and cinematography. Our family thoroughly enjoys the film. It just took me a little longer than the others.

Mike

Top

WALL-E

"After seven hundred years of doing what he was built
for, he discovered what he was meant for."

TOBIN'S PICK

Meet WALL-E: Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth-class. Day in, day out,
the little trash compactor on wheels rolls out of his storage truck to crunch
garbage into tiny cubes. But after centuries of performing the same task, he
has acquired what his programmers never intended – a personality. Now he
sifts shiny relics from the trash and stows them with his collection.

The first thing we notice about WALL-E’s world is that it is knee deep in rubbish. The next thing we notice is that there is not a human being in sight. As we learn from the faded billboards around the city, the human race has abandoned the planet for a luxurious new home on board the space cruise ship Axiom. “We’ll clean up the mess while you’re away,” promise the 700-year-old advertisements for the early WALL-Es. But after all his brother robots have broken down, our hero is the last of his kind, persevering at a job that has been declared a lost cause. His diligence, and his ability to see beauty in the commonplace, ultimately shake the humans out of their complacency and bring them back to take responsibility for their world.

Far from being an environmentalist tale, WALL-E’s world covered in garbage is an important statement about our technology-dependent, throwaway culture. The indulgent lifestyle on board the Axiom has made mankind forget about his responsibilities – about God’s role for him as gardener. The example of one little robot, however, leads everyone he meets to stop and wonder at creation. While an environmentalist picture would use the trashed-planet motif to have us save the trees, WALL-E proposes the Biblical message that the trees need to be cared for by men. To be human is to take care of that which is beautiful.

WALL-E is ultimately all about protocol – to be a Waste Allocation Load Lifter is to crush trash, even though everyone else has given up. Throughout, we see other robots derive satisfaction from their designated tasks. The only characters who have ignored their directives are the human beings. And on a ship run by computer, where technology serves every whim, man is all too happy to give up the God-given directive of human innovation. WALL-E is thus timely in an America that spends more of its time in front of a screen than working under the sky. In celebrating the human lordship over machines and the environment (and our responsibility toward it), WALL-E is a study in human nature comparable to C.S. Lewis’ land of Narnia, which must be ruled over by a “son of Adam.”

The execution of the film is brilliant. It is not only a smartly written descendent of classic sci-fi like Omega Man, Soylent Green, and Logan’s Run, but it cleverly employs silent film dynamic to deliver characters who speak largely in R2-D2-esque squeaks and clicks. Best of all is the film’s portrayal of gender interactions. WALL-E’s life changes when the Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator probe drops from the sky, and from the violin chords at WALL-E’s first awestruck glimpse of E.V.E. to his clumsy attempts to get her attention, the audience completely buys a robot romance that only Pixar could sell. The complementarian relationship that develops between the low-tech but industrious WALL-E, and the sleek but high-strung E.V.E. tells us much about human relationships as well.

I continue to be struck by the power of a good story to move and enlighten – even when delivered in the form of a cartoon. And in this case, the guidelines of the G-rating augment, rather than stifle, a wholesome and truly heartwarming tale. Pixar has invented a fresh new kind of animated feature just in time for this decade in which cartoons are no longer kid stuff.

Tobin

MIKE'S PICK

Whenever we have a "movie night" and I find out that WALL-E is on the marquee, I drop what I'm doing, go sit on the couch and wait for the movie to start. (Not really, but there are a few movies that I can't wait to see again and again, and this one is one of them.)

With most movies that Tobin and I go see together, we converse afterward about the story line, world view, cinematography, plot holes and other aspects of the film. (HINT: If you ever go to a movie with us, please be prepared to be quiet and sit all the way through the credits.) But not so with this film. We were both so wrapped up in the story and other aspects of the film that we were literally stunned into silence.

Like all other Pixar films, this one has a very strong story, perfect animation and believable characters. I bought the story of two robots falling in like with each other hook, line, and sinker. The almost complete lack of dialog for a good portion of the movie only made the story more real to me. In fact, at one point in during the show, I actually forgot that I was watching an animated feature.

Pixar is quite adept at playing our heart strings as well. Rarely am I moved by a film. (Most who know me would say that I am rarely moved at all.) However, I found myself helplessly drawn into the story as well as the beauty of the animated "stages" on which it was acted out. I found myself especially taken in by the dance sequence between the two robots outside the ship. Perhaps I'm softening up as I get older....

Those who look at this movie as a dark, man-kills-planet film, are really missing the entire point. This film is about friendship and relationships. Ultimately, it demonstrates how lonely we can become through technology. As the movie demonstrates, texting, facebooking, and emailing are poor substitutes for the real thing.

Whether you purchase, rent, or borrow WALL-E take the time to watch it. It is Pixar family entertainment at it's best.

Mike

Top

Twilight is a little light in its loafers.

          Edward Cullen is a one hundred year old seventeen-year-old, who lives with his family in rural Washington where the perpetual cloud cover protects their fair complexions.   They don’t age because they are vampires – not the bad kind, of course, because the Cullens have sworn to be “vegetarians,” subsisting only on animal blood. Edward is lonely and unfulfilled until the lovely Bella comes to town to live with her dad, and the two fall into a convenient star-crossed romance which leads to adventures evading the “bad” vampires, and Bella’s ultimate desire to be made like Edward and join him in everlasting teenagerhood.
          Yawn.
          I’ll be frank. Twilight held absolutely no surprises for me. As the marketing suggests, it is a nicely shot, uncomplicated story, populated with self-absorbed, self-loathing teenagers and revolving around the romantic fantasies of teen girls. It actually has some nice visuals and lighting, and even a pretty cool “zip” special effect – used whenever one of the vampires runs faster than sight.
          But the obligatory nature of the romance between Edward and Bella, who have nothing in common except their belief that no-one understands their oh-so-unique adolescent angst, will surely corrode the soul of anyone who watches it all the way through. I had to watch Pride and Prejudice right after to feel cleansed.   The difference is obvious: In good romance, one character’s emotions for another provide the motivation for his actions in the story. In Twilight, the characters’ emotions are the story. Why rent a DVD when I could see the same weepy fondling and snippy defensive tempers in any McDonald’s on a Friday night.
          The most obvious problem for many Christians is that Twilight romanticizes vampires.   But more dangerous, it romanticizes teenagerism – an emasculated, self-centered version of adulthood.
          Let me highlight the juvenility of this movie by offering an artistic critique, namely that Twilight adds nothing new to the vampire genre, as The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly did for the Western, and Star Wars did for science fiction. The only novelty it adds is vampires who sparkle in the light of day. That’s right, at sunrise they twinkle instead of crawling back into their coffins like Lon Chaney did. But even this glitter-skin is not an artistic innovation so much as it is a way to lift vampires from the gothic horror setting and transplant them in to the realm of sunshine, ponies, and rainbows so that little girls can enjoy them too. Edward the tame vampire with the pretty eyes is just the next step in a teen culture that downplays the evil of evil, or worse, finds it sexy. And the film’s lack of innovation – its sterility, if you will – reflects the shortsighted, amusement-fed audience at which it is directed.
          Edward’s effeminacy presents another problem. Yes, I just went against popular perception, and I’ll say it again: Edward Cullen is an effeminate pinky. Yes, he is ferociously protective of Bella, and yes, he is very physically powerful. But he is also controlled by his emotions, hesitant to lead the relationship anywhere, or even to leave Bella’s side when his presence puts her in danger.   Twilight presents a fulfillment of adolescent fantasy, with a beautiful adolescent boy who is wildly attracted to the girl in the movie, yet will never ask her for a commitment that might force her to grow up; Twilight presents feelings without a man attached.
          The movie’s unheard-of teaming of female director, writer, and original author came as no surprise when the credits finally rolled. From Bella’s distant, clueless father, to her chucklehead classmates, Twilight utterly lacks any masculine presence as a product of a culture where men have stopped being leaders. Why, by the way, does Edward’s father, who is praised for his self-control and protection of humans, fail to guide his son away from his highly compromising feelings for a human girl? Oh, of course: that kind of leadership would ruin the sexual tension, wouldn’t it?
          But the real danger of Twilight is that its celebration of immaturity is masked behind an alleged “pro-abstinence” veneer.   While Edward and Bella crave physical intimacy with one another, they refrain because even a kiss sets Edward’s vampire senses wild – and it takes all his restraint not to bite and kill. Some Christian reviewers have given this film the “thumbs up” because they see Edward, the passionate but potentially dangerous boy, as an every-teen, trying to exert self-control in the face of raging hormones.
          But this praise is totally baffling to me because there is absolutely no sexual ethic mentioned in the movie. I want to make the point, apparently lost on certain pro-abstinence reviewers, that the relationship’s “chastity” stems only from the highly practical reason that a moment of ecstasy is likely to get Bella killed; it is a problem to be overcome. Edward does not abstain because he has been taught a distinction between love and lust, nor because Bella or her parents set him any boundaries. In fact, during the pair’s first kiss, it is Bella who pushes for more – lucky for her, Edward tears himself away before she comes to harm.
          The kiss scene demonstrates the story’s central flaw: Bella need not discipline herself because Edward has enough restraint for them both. Bella and Edward refrain from sex, yes, but this is hardly “abstinence” from Bella’s point of view. Bella does not want sex. Bella wants attention.   And Bella can have all the attention she wants, because in the convenient scripting of Twilight, it will never cost her anything.
          Just as a man viewing X-rated pictures on the internet can enjoy visual stimulation outside the context of commitment, Bella (and all the teen girls watching) can enjoy romantic feelings outside the context of maturity or discipline – this is pornography of the heart.
          Vampire movies used to acknowledge the presence and the power of God – vampires, are, after all, repelled by the cross and holy water. This is because vampire legend stems from the Christian worldview. Gasp! Yes, vampirism as a literary concept presents a perversion of the Eucharist in which the drinking of blood imparts a satanic, rather than an everlasting, immortality; and this, of course, relies on an audience familiar with the Eucharist. Blood-drinking vampires are unique to the Christian(ized) nations of Europe. They are a portrayal of evil which necessitates an acknowledgement of God; Dracula (Bram Stoker, 1897) remains a powerful Christian novel portraying the struggle of righteous men against a Satan figure.
          The most offensive aspect of Twilight for me was seeing the powerful literary symbol of the vampire emasculated and made to cavort for teen girls’ amusement.   My point?   Don’t pass up Twilight because it’s a vampire movie. Pass it up because it celebrates teenage fantasies. Monsters are not appealing. Childish emotionalism is not manly. Audiences should grow up.

And now for a one-line review: All of Anne Rice's characters are more masculine than Edward Cullen - and they're bisexual.

Tobin

Nothing in the previews even remotely inspired me to see this film. As a result, I am (alas) without an opinion on it. However, not to be completely left out of this review, I trust what Tobin has to say here and will bow to his greater experience with the film.

Mike

Top

Star Trek

"Where no Remake has gone Before."

Over forty years ago the starship Enterprise, charge of captain James T. Kirk, set out to seek new life and new civilizations. Gene Roddenberry’s original TV series has spawned five spinoff series totaling 722 episodes, and ten feature films. And now comes the story of how it all began – the summer movie simply titled Star Trek.

Though an avid Star Trek watcher since my childhood in the 90s, the first ten minutes of the movie got an entirely new reaction from me: tears. The opening scene’s themes of valor and sacrifice present – in a way that perhaps only a remake can do – what it means to be a captain. Though the movie quickly becomes a fun summer action flick, the theme of fearlessness and initiative ring throughout, as when an adolescent James Kirk is challenged to enlist in Starfleet: "Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives including yours – I dare you to do better."

We meet Kirk as a genius-level delinquent struggling through officer’s school and making friends with old favorites Lt. Uhura and Dr. "Bones" McCoy. Sparks fly when the impulsive Kirk meets his polar opposite, the logical Vulcan, Mr. Spock. Through the clever scripting of a time warp, Star Trek is both a prequel to the Classic series and a continuation of the Next Generation franchise. Kirk’s stint at the academy is interrupted when a shipload of angry Romulans appears from the future, demanding vengeance for the destruction of their home planet – destined to take place over 200 years later. Kirk and the current captain of the Enterprise rush to stop them, leading to an action adventure which succeeds at remaining intense while never bordering on the frivolous.

What is remarkable about the movie is that the writers have managed to distill these characters to their core essences, distinguishing them from the actors who originally played them; Chris Pine is not simply impersonating William Shatner but is enacting James Kirk. Audiences should not expect deep character growth in the course of the 2-hour film, but should instead marvel at the interaction between solidly written characters: these characters take action because of who they are, never because it is simply expedient for the story.

In this decade where famous film series are reimagined and redefined with prequels and restarts (Casino Royale, X-Men Origins: Wolverine) we see a moviegoing culture ready for a more serious take on the old favorites.

(Wolverine, by the way, is also worth seeing – if not for its predictable plot, then definitely for its presentation of classic X-Men characters and how they met.)

This reincarnation of Star Trek has a sleek new look and clever contemporary photography – but it reminds us, more clearly than ever before, what was good about the original: a sense of courage and adventure which appeals to the child in all of us, and the triumph of earth-men as they assert themselves in a community of aliens who are often stronger or smarter than they are. Whereas many TV-based movies overstretch their material by attempting to contrive an adventure big enough for the big screen, Star Trek provides the exact opposite: an adventure big enough to kick off the TV series it anticipates.

The movie is rated PG-13 for action violence and infrequent language. During a chilling portrayal of battle, an astronaut is sucked into space through a damaged wall. An ugly mind-reader bug is put into a prisoner’s mouth in an effort to pick his brain. Of course Kirk gets a non-nude scene in bed with the traditional green-skinned woman – though the encounter is cut short and played mostly for comic effect. While it may not be a family movie, Star Trek’s real presentation of tragedy and loss, is balanced with swashbuckling space adventure, likeable characterization and an overall uplifting tone which makes it well worthwhile.

If you are new to Trek, the movie will fill you with wonder in a way that few space adventures have done since Star Wars – yes, the real one from the 70’s. If you are an old fan, and you have not seen it yet, the movie will not disappoint.

Tobin

MIKE'S PICK

I grew up watching Star Trek when it aired the first time. That's right, BEFORE the reruns. I was in elementary school at the time and all the boys were kept busy giving "Spock Shots" to each other on the playground. (When given a "Spock Shot", one was expected to dutifully fall to the ground in a dead faint.)

As I recall, Star Trek went off the air before we landed on the moon in 1969. I was devastated. William Shatner went on to make such films as The Devil's Rain and Kingdom of the Spiders (they were as good as you might expect their titles would indicate). Leonard Nimoy became Paris in Mission Impossible.

I was THRILLED as a young adult when in 1979, Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out. There were the same characters, played by the same actors, on a new and improved Enterprise, headed out into the galaxy ready to fight off the bad guys bent on destroying our planet. Life was simpler then. More movies followed, a goodly number of Star Trek spinoffs, movies from the spinoffs...you know the drill. And I devoured them all. I am, after all, a Trekkie...or Trekker...or Star Trek Afficionado...or whatever you want to call a die hard Star Trek fan. I even cried when Mr Spock died in The Wrath of Khan. How could they do that to me??

When the final episode of Star Trek: Enterprise aired, I figured that the franchise had finally died. Oh well. WAIT...another Star Trek movie in the works? Could it be true? No way it could compete with the previous 40 years. No way could they replace Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the rest....or COULD they?

Well, folks, they could and they did with Star Trek. While I cannot compete with Tobin's eloquence, I will say "Woo Hoo!!" loudly for Star Trek. This film surpassed any and all expectations that I had for the latest entry. In fact, I firmly believe that this film deserves a sequel. The franchise may be saved!!

During the film, we are in on the birth of James Tiberius Kirk, named after both of his grandfathers. We get to meet Spock, Bones, Sulu, Uhura, Scotty and Chekov in their first days aboard a brand new, first edition Enterprise. We even get to meet Captain Christopher Pike (who only showed up in the multi episode The Menagerie, which was the never aired pilot of the series). Pike recruits Kirk to Star Fleet in the beginning of the film. This causes a few continuity problems with the original, 40 year old story line. The die hard Star Trek fans might not be overly thrilled with the use of a time conundrum to sort all this out, but it all works quite well in the production. (The die hards need to re-adjust their pocket protectors and move on with life.)

On to the film. I found the movie very well done, tightly scripted but with action galore. LOTS of thing going "boom" (but not TOO many), make this an action flick to rival most others. However, the story is not sacrificed in the melee. Rather, the character of the players is shown in themes of heroism, self sacrifice, and honor. Captain Kirk gets the girl, kills the bad guy, and saves the earth for future generations. And I had a great deal of fun watching him do it...again. I can't wait for the sequel.

Mike

Top

"Adventure is out there."

Carl Fredrickson has always had a craving for adventure. And on his way home from the movies, the quiet, fat little boy meets someone with the same dreams and even the same aviator’s cap and goggles: a rambunctious, fearless little girl with a missing tooth. Ellie.

The first ten minutes of the movie follow the adult Carl’s romance with Ellie and the beautiful life they share, until Carl is left alone and unfulfilled on the front porch of their aging house. This montage could not only stand alone as a poignant short film, it gives a unique insight into the grumpy-old-man archetype. But this grumpy old man is about to embark on a life-changing adventure with the help of Russell – a young boy scout who is, unwittingly, a shadow of Carl’s boyhood self.

As a kid, Carl promised Ellie he would take her to the most exotic and adventurous place they knew: Paradise Falls. And though she is gone, the prospect of a forced expulsion from the home they built together pushes Carl to do just that – with the help of a few thousand balloons. Carl sets his house aflight like the dirigibles and aeroplanes of the adventurers he once worshipped and soon sets down in Paradise Falls for a quiet retirement. Or so he thinks.

But adventure, so UP would tell us, is not the places we go nor the discoveries we make – especially not the fame for such discoveries. Adventure is the people we love. As Carl attempts to move his house he struggles to rid himself of unwanted companions Russell and the loyal, dimwitted golden retriever Dug – and especially the goofy rainbow ostrich Kevin, native to Paradise Falls, who takes a liking to the crew. Moving the house and fulfilling his promise to Ellie is ultimately self-serving unless he is willing to keep his promises to others and to love the way Ellie taught him. And when danger threatens his annoying hangers-on, Carl rises to the occasion and discovers an adventure really worth having.

Pixar continues to deliver stories that remind us what is important in life – delivering entertainment, ironically, which proclaims that life is about more than being entertained. Up presents a world where promises and people matter more than accomplishments. Where it is enough simply to wonder at the beauty of nature, represented by Kevin the rainbow bird, without bringing it home in a cage.

The climax of the movie delivers a high altitude chase crafted from the perfect balance of intensity and laughs. But the sweet denouement shows that action (and action scenes) is given meaning only by the strength of our relationships.

"If I give my money to the poor and surrender my body to the flames…"

Adventure is out there, to quote the catchphrase of Carl’s boyhood movie hero. Don’t miss it in the mundane triumphs of loving and living.

Tobin

MIKE'S PICK

It has been said that all stories consist of one of two elements...a man goes on a journey, or, a stranger comes to town. Sometimes it's both. And, if you boil it down even further, the story ultimately is about a man going on a journey. The stranger coming to town is simply another man on a different journey.

UP is a fabulous story about Carl, a crotchety old man who never quite lived his dream of high adventure. Reality always required that he set his dream aside for the more mundane activities that life thrusts upon us.

The beginning of the film is a beautiful 10 minute montage of Carl and Ellie's (his best childhood friend and wife for life) life together, complete with the joys and heartaches that they lived through. They live a happy life but never get to go on the ultimate adventure to Paradise Falls, an eternal dream for both of them.

Suddenly, Carl is alone and wasting away in sadness and bitterness in the home he and Ellie had lived in their entire married life. Ultimately, Carl is being forced to move to the retirement home and he decides to take action. With the help of a bazillion brightly colored helium balloons, he flies away in his home...with unwitting stowaway, Russel. Russel is a Boy Scout trying to earn the "Help an Elderly Person" merit badge and is caught in Carl's adventure, like it or not. And what an adventure it turns out to be.

What is interesting about this story is that both Carl and Russel are really involved in two journeys. The obvious one, full of danger, action, and travel, and the not so obvious journey that is a transition in relationship. Carl wants to be alone. And he absolutely does not want responsibility for a little Scout. Russel's father is either absent or non-participating. Russel refers to his lonely family life in quiet sadness as he desperately wants a friend. The relational transition is especially sweet through the duration of the film.

This movie is not without it's formidable action sequences either. It builds to a wonderfully stressful airborn battle between the good guys and bad guys with a hilarious twist in character for one of them. A subtle nod to Star Wars during the climax added a welcome release to the tension. Be sure to watch for it.

Pixar has learned how to make us care about the characters that they create for their films. The final word in Monsters, Inc always brings a tear to my eye. I felt like a fool during the dance sequence in WALL-E. UP is no different. Take some tissues or learn to lean your head on your hand so you can discreetly wipe away the water running down your face with nobody noticing. This is Pixar at it's best...until the next film they put out.

One more thing. The first movie that I took Tammy to when we were in college was Bambi. And, for you smart alecs out there, this was a re-release of the film, not a premier viewing... As the movie ended, she started to get up and walk out during the credits. I gently explained to her that a lot of people helped make this movie and we should stay through the credits and at least see who they were. Since then, we've always stayed through the credits while the amateur moviegoers trot themselves out the door. In recent years, the producers have been putting a little "treat" during or at the end of the credits for those who stay. Folks, stay through the credits. You never know what's going to be hiding there.

Mike

Top

Kung-Fu Panda

"There is no charge for awesomeness."

Jack Black is not really an actor. He is more of a persona. That being said, I enjoyed his voice work in the endearingly written titular character of Kung-Fu Panda, Dreamworks’ best animated film so far.

Meet Po: noodle maker by day, king-fu master by night – but only in his dreams.

He wakes up every day to find himself the same overweight, go-nowhere loser stuck in the family restaurant. Though his dad assures him that they are noodle folk, and that broth runs deep in their veins, Po dreams of the opportunity to do something more – and dreams that of the courage to actually take it.

Like everyone else in the all-animal China he inhabits, Po the panda worships the kung-fu fighting "Furious Five." He has the posters, the action figures, and more than anything else, dreams of meeting them. But when the country is threatened by the return of Ti Lung, the fiercest kung-fu warrior of them all, the powers of the Five may not be enough. The old sage of the mountain says it is time to appoint a new weapon to fight Ti Lung: the Dragon Warrior. Po’s quest to become the Dragon Warrior and save China sets the stage for a comic adventure with intense but kid-friendly action scenes that are as entertaining as they are parodically funny.

To explain what’s so good about this Dreamworks production requires us to understand what is good about animated features in general. Pixar has set the bar for beautiful and entertaining cartoons because it has its own style – it has invented a breed of animated feature distinct (both visually and narrationally) from the fairy tale musical created by Disney. Animation is fueled by originality of style.

In their early years, Dreamworks attempted to mimic Pixar’s sense of humor, as if failing to realize that Pixar’s success stems from its uniqueness and not from its jokes. But Kung-Fu Panda is a sudden landmark, delivering character visuals, setting, and physical comedy in a style distinct from Pixar.

The major critique to be made against Kung-Fu Panda is the simplicity of its story. Po wants to be a kung-fu hero and finds – no surprise to anyone who saw the trailer – that it is his destiny to become one. However, the movie does not share the downfall of other simple stories: monotony. It delivers many different types of scenes from the comic, to the adventurous, to the spiritual, in a well-paced balance between many characters and locations. It is tidily written with foreshadowing, parallelism, and symbol. Even the music is evocative and authentically Chinese. The story’s simplicity is not necessarily to be held against it (not everyone is Pixar). Kung-Fu Panda does not puff itself up, and uses all its characters and elements in a unified and complete way.

The movie is also a visually appealing parody of martial arts films, with fight choreography on the scale of Hero or Fearless – intense and action-packed, yet family-friendly in their non-lethal silliness. My favorite was a duel between Po and his instructor, when they are each using a pair of chopsticks to fight over the last dumpling. The visual complexity of the action speaks to great quantities of talent and effort that went into its production. Best of all, the movie has its own look (something that has me intrigued about the upcoming Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs), promising that, next decade, animated features need no longer copy Pixar to feel good about themselves.

Though Panda’s obviously eastern philosophy of self-discovery and inner peace may provide a reason to shelter younger children from it, it bears none of the potty humor that hobbled earlier Dreamworks releases like Shrek. The movie is a great popcorn flick for discerning audiences –perhaps even a good discussion starter about the growing popularity of Easternism in America, or the layers of truth that can be extracted even from this pantheistic worldview.

Tobin

Kung Fu Panda is one of those films that I had to supress my gag reflex at the thought even sitting through. The previews were not inviting and generated no interest for me. However, the other night, Tobin and I sat down and watched it together. What a delight!

Please don't mention this to anyone. It will be our little secret. I have become a closet fan of Jack Black. Even though his humor becomes crass and vulgar at times, when he has a strong director, he can be quite disarming. In School of Rock, he demonstrated some very nice acting skills, as in Be Kind, Rewind. While I wouldn't necessarily recommend his films in general, I'm ashamed to admit that I really enjoyed Kung Fu Panda.

Our protagonist, Po (a panda bear of great weight), dreams of being a valiant kung fu warrior even though his destiny lies in making noodles and bean buns in the family restaurant. The film opens with a well disguised dream sequence which is absolutely hilarious. Po dreams himself as a Caine type character (of the TV series Kung Fu from way back when) on a trek to find someone who can challenge him in battle.

Through an comical chain of events, Po is crowned as the Kung Fu master annointed and appointed to save the town from Ti Lung. He then must begin his training in earnest for the final showdown at the hoe-down.

While there is nothing particularly offensive in this movie, the world view presented is Far Eastern in nature. Themes of destiny and spiritism are part of the backdrop on which this film is played out. There are elements that might be a bit frightening to younger audiences. There will certainly be opportunities for discussions after the movie is over.

Jack Black can put one in the "Win Column" on this film. Dreamworks has finally stopped trying to be Pixar. It's possible that Dreamworks has figured out that it doesn't need to use potty humor in it's films any longer. I certainly hope so.

Mike

Top

Terminator: Salvation

"I'll be back."

TOBIN'S PICK

Twenty-five years is a long time for any movie franchise, but when time travel is involved, anything is possible.

For those of you not familiar with the story, the Terminator saga originates in the future, where a race of self-aware machines wages war against their human creators. With superior weaponry and armor, they are all but successful – held at bay only by the leadership of one man: John Connor.

Failing any attempt to kill Connor in guerilla combat, the machines calculate a sneakier (and more metaphysically interesting) plan: send a mechanized assassin, a Terminator, back to the 80s to kill John’s mother before he can be born. The human resistance learns of the plan in time to send their own soldier, Kyle Reese, as her protector.

The sequels expanded the time-travel/dark future concept, each set in the year of its release. Terminator: Salvation is the first movie to actually take place in the future, depicting Connor as an adult, leading a ragged band of survivalists in their fight against mechanical killers. (And, yes, to any fans disappointed by T3, this movie more than makes up for it)

As horror is the dark side of fantasy, so science fiction has a dark side: cyberpunk. Science fiction traditionally depicts man’s use of science to propel human inventiveness and courage to other worlds beyond Earth. But cyberpunk, invented in the 80s with films like Blade Runner, depicts a future where science has become a monster man can no longer control – whether it take the form a killer computer or a culture addicted to implants and microchips. Cyberpunk portrays (perhaps more relevantly to today’s culture) the struggle between flesh and silicon as rapidly advancing technology threatens to violate the human essence.

This is the central conflict of Terminator, where man’s inventions seek to destroy him, his cities and accomplishments have been stripped away, and he must understand and embrace his humanity or else have it snuffed out forever.

(At one point in the movie, a woman goes to sleep with her head on a man’s chest and comments significantly that she loves the sound of a beating heart.)

But the appeal of Terminator goes beyond the basic man vs. machine motif that was sufficient for the 80s installment. Now man struggles to take control of an earth that has become a wilderness. This is the conflict that drives the most enduring of legends: the bringing of civilization where there was chaos before. Legendary heroes slay fictional monsters in representation of Genesis’ dominion mandate to subdue the earth – even the Biblical David is elevated to legendary status by his killing of wild animals and the barbaric Philistines.

The post-apocalypse of Terminator returns to the stuff of legend by presenting a new kind of wilderness – the rubble of human complacency – complete with a new kind of wild animal: machines. Much like Gilgamesh, David, or Beowulf, John Connor asserts mastery over these monsters, triumphing not because of superior strength or intelligence, but by virtue of his human spirit. Man alone was meant to rule the earth. Terminator follows in Tolkien’s tradition of fantasy in that it made me proud to be a human being.

Such are the form and themes of Terminator. As to the story, the script is tidily written, balancing the episodic adventures that showcase the setting in the first half with the questions of humanity raised in the second. Dialogue is pregnant with meaning and symbol in a way not common to action movies, and yet the action and stunts – while bordering sometimes on the implausible – make it a greatly entertaining summer movie.

Director "McG" scales back the gore and language of the original to achieve a PG-13 rating. (Note the same phenomenon in the latest installment of the contemporaneous Die Hard franchise – no matter what doomsayer Christians may say about the culture, audiences are becoming more sensitive and cerebral than they were in the 80s – not less). But again, what violence and language there is is in keeping with the survivalist scenario, and is more than forgivable for a discerning audience wishing to see a wholesome and mythic portrayal of the human spirit.

Tobin

MIKE'S PICK

"The machines rose from the ashes of the nuclear fire. Their war to exterminate mankind had raged for decades, but the final battle would not be fought in the future. It would be fought here, in our present. Tonight..."

In 1984 at 1:52 AM, he arrived. Unclothed, unfeeling, unmerciful, and unnoticed, the Terminator came from the future to accomplish his mission at any cost. The mission? To kill the mother of John Connor, the resistance leader, before he is born.

In 1984, we were living in Bakersfield, CA. We had purchased our first home ($45,000 for a nice little 3 bedroom, 1 bath house on a fairly large lot) and had our first German Shepherd named Olive.

Those of you who have met Tammy and me in person will not be surprised that I am a fan of the Terminator series. With a virtually indestructable robot from the future chasing after a woman who is forced into defending herself, bullets flying everywhere, and a explosions galore, this was my kind of film.

With cheesy (by today's standards) stop animation, lame opening credits, and really bad keyboard music scoring, Terminator, starring Arnold Swartzenegger was released in the theatres after several weeks of promotion on television. This was the first "cyber punk" film that I remember seeing and I was hooked. When it was over, I couldn't wait to see the second installment.

FINALLY, in 1991, T2 came out. In T2, Arnold plays another robot from the future, but this time to protect the now 13-14 year old John Connor who in the future, sent the Terminator back in time to protect himself. (It's one of those time conundrum things that's hard to explain.) T2, surprisingly, is one of Tammy's favorite films. There were even rumblings in the pro-life community about T2 having some pro-life themes. Again, I eagerly awaited the 3rd installment.

Then, in 2003, out came T3. Don't bother. It's not worth seeing.

Now we have Terminator: Salvation. This film is obviously an apology for T3 and WOW, do they apologize!!

Terminator: Salvation, unlike the other films, is set in the future. The movie takes us to the battle proper. The Skynet machines are dead set on eliminating mankind and are doing a pretty good job of it. The resistance is fragmented at best. Mankind's only hope is a newly discovered weakness in the Skynet network and John Connor volunteers to test, and ultimately implement it.

Gone is the pervasive language and brief nudity of the previous films. Gone is the R rating. What's left is a solidly written, well acted story of man vs machine. While the back story of the 3 previous films is helpful in sorting this one out, they aren't necessary. The film stands on its own quite nicely. The pacing of the story is perfect. The special effects are perfect. The tone of the film is perfect. The battle scenes keep you on the edge of your seat. Cinematically, the images are gritty and the colors are dimmed, adding just the right touch of reality to the story.

As with the new Star Trek, I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. I hope that we get another sequel in this series.

Mike

Top

G. I. Joe

This is a review that I started a couple of months ago right after I saw G I Joe and didn't bother to post it. Tobin relegated the top spot to me since he hasn't actually seen the film.

I was 8 years old when G.I. Joe came to market in 1964 before the Vietnam war started. (The Vietnam war began in 1965 with the Battle of Ia Drang). He was sold as "America's Movable Fighting Man". He had 21 moveable parts and was not a "doll", he was an "action figure". "G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu Grip", was originally designed alongside a television series called The Lieutenant (produced by none other than Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek fame).

Johnny Hudgens was my best friend at the time and, while I was never really a fan of war or soldier toys, HE was and I couldn't help noticing how this action figure moved. He could be posed in any number of ways, including positions that only a Russian gymnast (with every bone dislocated) could even attempt to get into. G.I. Joe has been through as many modifications and presentations as Barby and is still popular today.

Well, Joe has finally made it into the ranks of live action moviedom. In association with Hasbro, G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra hit a home run at the box office. Its openening weekend produced some $50,000,000. After seeing it today, I don't really understand why.

This movie has it all: CGI effects galore, Dennis Quaid, Marlon Wayans, a predictable storyline, an ending that a child could spot coming 45 minutes ahead of time, and an all too obvious set up for a sequel. It also uses flashbacks galore to establish a back story. Why it even has 2 martial arts childhood enemies getting back together to settle it once and for all. And just GUESS who wins (the good guy? or the bad guy?)

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE Dennis Quaid. Marlon Wayans isn't bad. And CGI, if not overdone, is helpful for certain films. But, if I can spot the ending coming, it seems that the writers and directors aren't doing their jobs.

The film had its high points, though. The car chase involving 2 soldiers on foot was somewhat interesting, especially if you like to see lots of cars being thrown into the air. But it can get monotonous at times, even for me.

The carnage and loss of life was about what you would expect from a "struggle for world domination between the US Military and a psycho billionaire" story. Think "The Patriot" or "Braveheart" but without the class.

G. I. Joe was made to make a quick buck, which it did. It was hyped to the top of the charts based on no merits if its own. I RARELY walk out on a movie but if the kids were to rent this one for home viewing, I wouldn't bother sitting down to watch it again. I'd find something more productive to do with the 90 odd minutes. Like playing Minesweeper.

Mike

I am now going to do something new, which is to review a movie I have not seen. The main reason I didn't see G.I. Joe is that the director is older than I am. That's right - 47 year old Stephen Sommers did not grow up watching the "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero" cartoon show (1989-91). And in my opinion, unless you grew up watching General Hawk's weekly battles against villains like Serpentor and the V.I.P.E.R.S., you would be hard put to bring it to the silver screen with any degree of dignity. (This is also why I did not bother with Transformers, and will not be seeing any screen adaptations of He-Man, Carmen Sandiego, Ninja Turtles, Mario Bros., Power Rangers, or M.A.S.K. any time before the next decade is up. These are MY generation's cartoons.)

Let's look at the best "kid movies for grown-ups" of all time: Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I propose that these movies are awesome for the sole reason that George Lucas had grown up with the serial adventure heroes like Flash Gordon and Doc Savage, and then, after reflecting on them for thirty-odd years, wanted to do them honor in a big budget film. Consequently, he created space battles and treasure hunts like nobody had ever seen before - but had always hoped they could. Only someone who grew up with Flash Gordon could have seen the potential for greatness embedded in his corny space swashbuckling.

Likewise, only somebody who actually grew up enthusiastic about the G.I. Joe vs. Cobra continuum could give it enough subtlety and freshness to spin the old classic into a new and enduring light. Sommers did not. Judging by the advertising, this movie appears to have not added any new depth or interest to the G.I. Joe franchise (as Terminator, Batman, Casino Royale, Star Trek, and even Wolverine succeeded in doing for their franchises recently), but instead to have created a cheap action story which banks off the name recognition of a familiar icon - using poor old G.I. Joe to ingratiate itself with the audience instead of trying to honor and expand the original. I mean, even the sick minds at Robot Chicken seem to do the G.I. Joe show more honor in their stop-animated parodies... where Cobra Commander and Lex Lutor are carpooling home from the evil office, and the Decepticons are just tossed into the skit for a laugh.... ah, the twisted nostalgia. (Movie Watch Blog does not in any way recommend Robot Chicken.)

But then again, I never saw the movie, so I'm just responding to the marketing and trailer. And maybe that cotton-candy-ish trailer veiled a movie that was actually quite nostalgic and satisfying. And maybe Stephen Sommers, 29 years old when I was six, was enough of a softie at the time to absorb G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero with the heart of a child. Maybe.

Tobin

Top

District 9

The one-scene teaser trailer sums up District 9 the best: lobster-like creature sits in a police interrogation room, its face is obscured by a TV-journalism style screen blur.

Policeman: “Why are you here?”
Alien: “We didn’t mean to land here.”
Policeman: “Why don’t you leave?”
Alien: “How can we leave when you have our ship?”
Policeman: “How do your weapons work?”

District 9 brings an innovative twist to a familiar story: a flying saucer comes to earth, not for an invasion, but for an emergency landing. The crustacean-like creatures inside, nicknamed “prawns” by earthlings, land in need of food and shelter, and fall victim to earth’s “hospitality:” species segregation and interment camps, driven by the Machiavellian desire to control the aliens’ superior weapons. Like any persecuted and untouchable people group in human history, the prawns live in squalor – and degenerate to a corresponding state of barbarism.

A powerful theme here is that cruelty breeds barbarism – human oppressors grow callous and inhuman, just as the hopeless prawns devolve and become the slum-dwellers humanity has made of them. This theme is intensified in the person of protagonist Wikus van de Merwe, a compliant official in the alien interment program who falls afoul of his government and is forced to live among the prawns whom he has oppressed. In this way, District 9 is a Nebuchadnezzar story, and it is indeed edifying to see the tables turned on an unquestioning racist who suddenly finds himself persecuted and reduced to eating the aliens’ favorite delicacy – cat food – just as the ancient ruler of Babylon ate grass.

The movie’s skillful setup and gritty documentary style photography led me to expect a story that would speak seriously about prejudice, irony, and man’s inhumanity to those who are different. My disappointment was all the greater when the second hour took the form of a thriller movie – for when chases, explosions, and laser blasts obscure the important themes set up in the first act, they fail to even be exciting.

My major disappointment with District 9 was one of violence. We live in a time when graphic violence has become acceptable in R-rated film. This is not universally a bad thing – films like We Were Soldiers and No Country for Old Men depict violence, evil, and inhumanity in an arresting and insightful way. But District 9 presents pervasive gore in a context that does not bother to tell us much that is arresting or insightful about the themes on which the movie ought to center: prejudice and cruelty. A movie’s level of violence must match its level of seriousness, and a mere thriller quite simply does not deserve to depict the dismemberments, the torture, and the exploding bodies seen in District 9. Senseless violence should only be shown in a story that condemns the senselessness of violence – District 9 is merely senseless in its use of violence.

Tobin

When I first saw the previews for District 9 some months ago, I found myself being VERY interested in seeing it. My thoughts were steered toward "alien invasion against a backdrop of the horrible Japanese internment camps (JIC) of WWII". This ought to be good. (For the older folks, memories of the JIC are probably still vivid. For the younger, the JIC have been relegated to the history books. For ALL, it's a situation that must be looked at as an absolutely disdainful part of our history.)

My friend James and I went to see it when it finally opened here at the Culpeper 4. Yes, the Culpeper 4.

When I go see a film, I usually come away feeling like it was either a waste of money (in the case of GI Joe, it was a waste of a free pass), a use time and money that left me feeling neither good nor bad, or a tremendous experience that is worthy of the cost of another ticket and the time it takes to see it again. While District 9 wasn't a total waste, neither is it a film that I am likely to see again.

Perhaps my expectations were set a bit higher than the movie was able to meet? Perhaps the previews led me to believe that it was something that it wasn't? (The scene in the trailer that Tobin mentions above wasn't even in the film.) Perhaps I was actually in the mood for something else? I'm not really sure. But, I came away feeling whelmed. Neither underwhelmed, nor overwhelmed, just whelmed. While the film made some important observations about how power corrupts even the most mealy mouthed individuals, it fell short in other areas that could have been addressed more carefully. In one particularly disturbing scene, unborn alien babies are callously aborted with less thought than it takes to swat a fly.

With all it's flashes, bangs, and booms, ultimately the story is about a man who goes from panty waist beauracrat, to being put in charge and abusing his authority, to becoming what he hates and realizing the error of his ways.

While my tolerance for film violence and language is fairly high, the violence in this film is mostly gratuitous and the language simply displays a poor command of the english language.

I cannot recommend this film to others.

Mike

Top

REWIND REVIEW

City of Ember

The poster to City of Ember depicts many things that I like: a young man helping a girl up a perilous-looking cliff as they climb away from their safe, familiar home, braving the darkness to find a purer light at the end of the tunnel. The movie just wasn’t quite as good as the poster.

To understand the characters in City of Ember, you have to understand its very creative setting, adapted from the novel by Jeanne DuPrau. The day the world “ended,” in a now-forgotten disaster, the underground city of Ember was built to preserve the light of civilization. In their world of clunky electric generators and incandescent light bulbs, the inhabitants of Ember have no remembrance of the world on the surface – or of a surface at all. They mind their own business and never venture away from the lights of the city. Until those lights begin to flicker.

Doon Harrow just wants what every young man wants; to brave a dangerous job that will save his community. As his home of Ember shows unnerving signs of age, Doon dreams of growing up to fix the fabled Generator, the source of all power. But what he stumbles upon is much bigger – the secret of the forgotten world above.

The problem with Ember is that, for an adventure film, it does not take our hero far enough away from home. His whole quest revolves around clues that were already in the city itself, under his nose, as it were. I found this to be frustrating as was first Redwall book, hoping for the greater diversity of settings and hazards as in The Hobbit.

The setting is clever, nonetheless, and the city is crammed with puzzles, secret passages, and even “monsters” of a sort – those who love fairy tales like I do will be amused and satisfied with how Ember replaces the traditional dragon/ogre motif. But for those expecting brilliantly written characters or a smartly twisting plot, it’s important to remember that City of Ember is more of a kids’ movie: a gimmicky treasure hunt flick, with some cute casting and some interesting ideas, but nothing very deep. (though it has a straight performance by Bill Murray, who has the capacity to make any movie better). What Ember does do is transpose basic fairy tale/adventure ideas into an eclectic fantasy world of gears and pipes rather than the traditional castle-and-forest setting – a touch that I absolutely loved.

City of Ember: good literature? Hardly. But a wholesome family film that will hold the kids’ interest, and inspire little boys to have courage and conviction like Doon Harrow, no matter what? Absolutely.

Tobin

After reading Tobin's review, I decided to put City of Ember on my NetFlix list. It came in a few days ago and Tammy, Megan and I watched it together.

This film has elements from several other of my favorite movies. Mix equal parts of Goonies (1985), National Treasure (2004) and Logan's Run (1976). Add a dash of Men in Black (1997), and a pinch of Soldier (1998). Fold in a helping of the Splash Mountain ride mixed with a wonderful soundtrack worthy of any decent surround sound amplifier and you have a delightful children's adventure flick. (For purpose of this review, I am not endorsing the above films.)

Against a backdrop of a forgotten underground city where food is getting scarce, power is unreliable, and crooks still thrive, this is a story of a young man and woman who have decided to take charge of their own lives.

On graduation day, students are handed out jobs not by their aptitude or interest, but rather by random draw. Doon Harrow is destined to be a messenger. Lina Mayfleet is assigned to Pipe Repair Works. She and Doon decide to secretly switch jobs so that they can both do what they are inclined. Together, they discover the secret of the City of Ember. With Bill Murray playing an uncharacteristically serious role as the Mayor, the story has all the elements of a well done children's film.

Although the film is painfully predictable and has a plot devoid of depth, virtually any adolescent or young teenage boy will come away wishing that HE were Doon Harrow saving the town, the day, and not one but TWO young ladies.

The question that you might want to ask me is, "Did you enjoy the 90 minute ride with your family?". Yes, I sure did.

Mike

Top

Outsourced

"Todd Anderson lost his job. But half-way round the world, he found his life."

Office Space (1999). Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Brigadoon (1954). Blend the best of each in the magical medium of independent filmmaking – where witty dialogue, expressive camerawork, and parallelism exorcise the need for big name stars and big budget visuals – and you have Outsourced.

Todd Anderson’s job has been yanked out from under him. Worse, the company still needs him – to train his replacement. In India. Todd finds himself a stranger in a strange land, battling the very culture in order to get his new crew of Indian phone salesmen to speak (and keep a timetable) like Americans.

At first, the Indian culture is no more than an obstacle to Todd. A typical American, he just wants to get in, get out, and get back to the apartment he left in Seattle. But it is as if India, and the patron goddess Kali herself, are holding him there; the death-goddess’ likeness is all over India, and it is Todd’s cultural preconceptions that must die before he can find a meaningful life.

At first Todd remains aloof in the dirty, alien land, turning up his nose at the lack of soap and the backward cultural ways – and even the many Indians who try to befriend him. But by the midpoint of the movie he finally surrenders to India and allows himself to love it, in what is by far the coolest film baptism allusion that I have ever seen (you’ll know it when you see it). And when his time there is over, he has discovered something more important than the apartment – the things – he left in the States. Contentment is a decision.

The remarkable thing about Outsourced is that no plot summary can really sum it up. More than a comedy about a man who lost his job, it is a leisurely-paced, theme-driven story about contentment, and about seeing what is truly important in life. Like Todd himself, Americans (even Christian Americans) can benefit from the window into a foreign culture provided by this movie. In one wordless scene, Todd observes the love shared by a poverty-stricken family that has invited him to eat with them, and the last of his materialism is blown away. Sappy? Only because it’s been done too many times and by all the wrong filmmakers. In Outsourced, on the other hand, director John Jeffcoat hits it home in a way that is genuinely touching.

The portrayal of Hinduism, too, is a culturally broadening experience. Christians still know reincarnation is a false doctrine, but after seeing this movie, they will no longer think it sounds stupid. Far from it, the destruction brought by the goddess Kali sounds suspiciously like “unless a seed fall into the ground.…” Don’t worry; this movie will not turn you into a Hindu – but it will give you a new respect for Hindu people.

Outsourced is rated for some barely PG-13-worthy sexual content, which is kept tastefully off screen (thank you, independent filmmaking). In fact, the most graphic things that are seen are some illustrations from the Kama Sutra, which are talked about in a humorous light. Christians may or may not be offended by the movie’s sexual ethic (that it’s okay if the love is real). I wasn’t. At least the movie had one. And though the story by no means centers on this topic (I only bring it up because it is a possible stumbling block among many many other elements), the dilemmas of people who become physically involved are portrayed realistically enough to perhaps spark a good family discussion with younger viewers about what we, as Christians, believe about marriage.

So buckle up for a ride to India with a movie where you can smell the food, feel the dust in the air, and taste the culture. By the time the credits roll, you won’t want to go back to Seattle.

Tobin

I haven't seen this film yet, but I just put it in my Netflix queue.

Mike

Top

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

“Can you look me in the eye and tell me you’ve got this under control?”

Welcome to Swallow Falls, a quiet sardine-fishing town with an ambitious mayor. But when world consensus declares sardines “super gross,” the town is on the brink of economic collapse. They try everything, even sardine-themed tourist attractions, to keep afloat, but it is an invention by wacky outcast Flint Lockwood that finally makes the town famous, and at the same time unveils its biggest threat – greed.

I like this movie’s take on the typical “boy genius” character type. Flint Lockwood is a goofy, inept, imaginative young man, whose bedroom is adorned with posters that depict Edison and Tesla as superheroes. But more than his nerdiness, the movie succeeds in showing him as an everyman, with dreams that are just out of reach, and an indefinable difficulty sharing his feelings with his loved ones.

I’ll be brief on the story: basically the town goes crazy for a new meteorological food creation device which Flint invents, until they realize that too much of a good thing can not only be fattening, but deadly. The size of the food gradually grows out of control, and killer-sized pancakes, hot dogs, and yes, meatballs, begin demolishing the town. It is up to Flint and some unlikely heroes to save the day.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is a story of shortsighted reward vs. long-term responsibility. Flint must find a balance between the popularity-minded and hedonistic mayor, who will do anything to reach an unsustainable seat at the top, and his conservative, unassuming father who is content to a fault, finding it difficult to learn anything new. Interwoven with this, is the theme of being true to self; Flint struggles with the social outcastism of being a skinny inventor, while former nerd reporter Samantha Sparks sacrifices her brains for the perky bimbo image that will make her successful in the news. The point? Be who you are (and, by extension – though the movie doesn’t say this – what God has made you for) whether or not it is popular.

On an artistic note, I was hooked as soon as the nostalgic, ‘80s sci-fi looking title font filled the screen. From its snappy editing to its unique looking characters, Sony Animation has created a computer-animated cartoon that feels distinct in every way from Pixar’s films – and is no less funny, which was a problem for the early Pixar rivals like Shrek. Cloudy comes forth with its own identity and its own sense of humor, and while WALL-E definitely represents subtler imagery and more worthwhile themes, Cloudy is great (and wholesome) entertainment.

As Pixar tends to deliver the pinnacle of witty writing, Cloudy is a pinnacle of slapstick comedy – which for once, is not an insult.

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi718340633/

Tobin

By it’s title, “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” (CWACAM) was not a film I was particularly interested in seeing. However, the previews were fun and made the film look like it might be mildly entertaining.

Megan and I were in South Carolina visiting with Tobin (who lives there now) and we all decided to go see CWACAM (you’ll get the joke when you see the film but right now I’m ROTFLOL.) The theatre was relatively empty which is just the way I like to watch a movie.

How someone made an hour and a half film out of a book that takes about 5 minutes to read is beyond me, but I was engaged from beginning to end.

Flint is an aspiring inventor. In elementary school, he invents spray on shoes. While the spray works very well and the shoes themselves are indestructible, there’s one problem. He can’t take them off and he’s still wearing them as an adult. He’s immediately labeled a nerd in the 3rd grade but keeps right on inventing things. Perhaps the funniest of his inventions is a remote control television set which sprouts legs and walks over to the owner’s chair so that he can change the channel. The TV immediately walks back to it’s place on the table and sits back down. One day the TV runs away and we see it in a couple of brief scenes later which includes a hilarious twist involving some looting going on in the town. Don’t miss it.

Flint’s life ambition is to figure out how to turn water into food. When he succeeds, the problems begin.

I’ve heard that a large number of the stories that we tell and hear have references to Greek mythology and the Bible. If that is true, then the case can be made for this story being loosely based on the “manna from heaven” story in the Old Testament. Now, please don’t get excited about my correlating the two. I’m NOT saying that this is a Christian film or a Bible story. It isn’t. There are simply some similarities here. Food begins falling from the sky, the people like it, get used to it, then start to complain and then they’re really sorry.

There is another interesting aspect of the film. Many of us remember the cartoons we used to watch as children (or still do as adults). In some cartoons, there is a small devil and angel which stand on the character’s shoulders; one egging him on to do the bad thing and the other trying to get him to do the right thing. These two characters are personified by the town mayor (trying to appeal to Flint’s greedy side) and Flint’s father (acting as his conscience).
Also worthy of mention is the character played by Mr T as the town’s policeman. While he’s quite funny, he plays a man of integrity and responsibility. Even though he is spoiling his son, he loves him deeply and would do anything to protect him and his wife. He displays his self-sacrificing love for his family in obvious fashion. One of my favorite lines in the film could ONLY be delivered properly by Mr T. "You know what you are Flint Lockwood? You're a shenaniganizer."

For Star Trek fans (and if you're not one, you ought to be), there's a treat toward the end of the film. Without going into much detail, think VGER. Need a hint? Ok. Think Star Trek: The Motion Picture, released 12/7/1979 by Paramount Studios. Nominated for 3 Academy Awards: Set Decoration, Visual Effects, and Original Score. Directed by Robert Wise, Written By Gene Roddenberry and Alan Foster. Starring, of course, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and all the rest of the TV Cast plus a few more. Think BIG space cloud about to destroy the earth.

I don’t usually laugh out loud when I’m watching a movie in the theatre as I find it distracting when others do it. However, I did at this one. With all the wonderful sight gags and one liners, I couldn’t help myself. The story was well written, paced well, and allowed my period of suspended disbelief to go on throughout. Children will love the action. Adults will love the dialog. Be prepared to listen fast.

I will make one last comment. Pixar (Monsters, Inc., Wall-e, UP, etc) has set the standard for successful animated films. They insist on strong stories, loveable characters, and ZERO potty humor. Dreamworks (Kung-Fu Panda) and Sony (CWACOM) have finally figured out how to make a good movie using the same formula. Now, if they’ll just stick to it, they may give Pixar a run for their money. While CWACOM didn’t receive a MIKE’S PICK, it sure came close. It was a thoroughly enjoyable family film but lacked the class and panache of WALL-E.

Mike

Top

REWIND REVIEW

The Last Legion

I’m not sure how I missed this one in 2007, since it was exactly the kind of escapism I needed during a tough Junior year of college. This screen shot pretty much says it all. Colin Firth. Swinging on ropes. With a dusky warrior princess. Can a movie get any better?

Well, yes, the story could have been more plausible, and could have interwoven some deeper themes. But if, like me, you are a sucker for wizards and swordfights, then The Last Legion is for you.

460, AD. Ten-year old Romulus is crowned emperor of Rome – the day the empire falls. Now the boy, his bodyguard, aging tutor, and an exotic martial-arts babe from Constantinople must make a perilous trek through blood-thirsty barbarians, double-crossing senators, and a crazed warlord, to the last bastion of the empire: Hadrian’s Wall – and along the way, fulfill a prophecy to discover the lost sword of Julius Caesar himself, a weapon forged from a fallen star and destined to lead a people to freedom.

To really enjoy The Last Legion, it is important to understand the function the B-movie serves in the world of literature. In the days before television ruined the visual media, films came packaged in double features: one did not go to see a particular movie, one went to “the movies,” and was treated to a newsreel, a cartoon, an A feature, where dramatic actors like Humphrey Bogart pondered the meaning of life and the human condition, and a B feature, where cowboys, superheroes, mad scientists, flying saucers, and adventurers cavorted in that wonderful world which is “pulp” fiction.*

With today’s increases in budget, and the need to distract audiences away from their television sets, filmmakers now give formerly B movie material the same production values as A movies (which has led to the common misconception that the B is for ‘bad’ – a failed attempt to make an A movie). Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were some of the first B movies to approach this level of serious filmmaking.

And in fact, The Last Legion stirred me the same way Star Wars did all those years ago. The story is video-gamish, but the acting is good enough and the action purposeful enough (most battles give the characters a chance to show their personalities, and not just their moves) that I really didn’t care. A boy who yearns to be a hero, leaders who make predictable but still delightful statements about honor and nobility, swordfights, rescues (and swinging on ropes), all harmonize together to create a nostalgic, sublime experience.

I love watching the characters of The Last Legion, whether they be battling, bantering, or sacrificing themselves for the team. Many adventure films introduce more heroes than they need – and then cheat the minor ones out of a real personality. But in The Last Legion, all the good guys feel real. In fact, it would be possible to do a spinoff film about any one of them. (The above photo, for example, was actually the movie poster for some foreign releases of the film, though neither of the people pictured are the “main” character) Perhaps Colin Firth (like Dustin Hoffman) has the ability to elevate the acting performances of the people around him, or perhaps director Doug Lefler is just that good.

The costuming is also very cool, dingy browns replacing the classic reds of Roman soldiers to signify the decline of an empire; and the movie is just history-conscious enough to be amusing for those who know about the era and don’t mind having a little fun with it. It also draws on a legendary/literary source, which makes it doubly fun, but which they don’t explicitly give away until the end, so I won’t either. (Don’t watch the trailer unless you want a spoiler.)

The violence in the film definitely earns it a PG-13, but a comparatively tame one. When Romulus’s mother and father are killed by a mob of barbarians, both the act and the blood are kept tastefully out of frame. The boy is threatened with bodily harm again and again, but the tone of every scene is more Adventure than it is Danger, and so even these moments feel pretty safe – as opposed to, say, a film by Quentin Tarantino, where the audience is always kept fearful that something even worse will happen than actually does. However, when the barbarian chieftain cuts off the finger of an unruly subordinate (also kept out of frame) was when I realized this was indeed a PG-13 movie.

This is the best adventure movie I have seen in a while. Not on the artistic level of Raiders of the Lost Ark or Lord of the Rings, but good, and definitely beats out Narnia for pure entertainment value. Basically, in the way that 300 turns history into popcorny fantasy fiction, so does The Last Legion. But without the nudity. And with funner fights. And with better acting.

*Pulp fiction is the name originally given to these genres, which were first popularized in the early twentieth century’s phenomenon of the “dime novel” – printed hastily and cheaply on the coarsest paper that would hold together: barely refined wood pulp.

Tobin

I've marked this one in my NetFlix account and will comment when I see it.

On a personal note, I've mentioned this to Tobin privately on a number of occasions, but it's time to go public. I love the way he writes reviews. I love the way he writes stories. And I LOVE watching the video work that he does. Yes, well, he's my son, but I honestly try to put that aside when looking at his work. I believe that he as a gift when it comes to writing and telling stories with film and I'm very proud of him.

Mike

Top

Where the Wild Things Are

"I'll eat you up, I love you so."

For the thirty year anniversary of what has been called the most popular picture book of all time, Warner Bros. brings Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things are to screen.

Sent to bed without supper, the energetic and frustrated Max runs away to an imaginary world where monsters cavort and smash things all day, with no mother to boss them around. But Wild Thing Island represents something much more dangerous than Neverland, and unlike Peter Pan, Max must make a choice to come home – or be devoured by his wild side.

This movie, both visually and emotionally, captures the classic picture book: the isolation, the yearning for wildness, and the danger which that wildness represents – all are here. The writers did a fabulous job of putting words in the mouths of Sendak’s creatures, inspired only by the illustrations; the wild things are rich, believable, and extremely lovable – even brilliantly animated: Wild Things is the certainly biggest landmark in puppetry/computer animation fusion since Babe.

Wild Things brought to my attention a new type of filmmaking that has emerged over the last decade: what I call the Handycam movie, or the Blog Culture movie. Influenced by today’s easy access to media, these films take a step back from the look of independent film in an effort to feel homemade – not unprofessional, but pervaded with the kind of art the main characters themselves would make. From the time the movie opens, its childishly sketched credits, its carefree handheld camera work, and its silly indie iPod-playlist-ish soundtrack makes it feel akin to the nonchalant artiness of Bella, or the wonderful title sequence of Napoleon Dynamite.

Stylistically, this is a good choice for Sendak’s story because this kind of filmmaking gets us very quickly into a central character’s personal thoughts and feelings, the same way blog culture has taught us to do; we are able immediately to relate to the uncomplex pain and selfish fantasy of Max. Nor does this medium fail to teach Max a lesson, for his terror and repentance are equally vivid. The unfortunate side effect of this style is that it tends to be too breezy, tolerant, and lighthearted to sit still and make a real point (an obstacle Bella carefully overcame).

And that’s the weakest part of Wild Things: the story raises great themes but doesn’t wrap all of them up in a tidy way, in large part because of its length. In the book, once Max arrives on Wild Thing Island the text gradually disappears, reflecting barbarism and dehumanization. The movie reflects this by having many scenes where wild rumpus fills in for dialogue, and these scenes make the point that rumpus is fun, but can become sinister when it is unrestrained (there is a little of Lord of the Flies here, too). It takes incredible directorship to pull off so many consecutive minutes of wordless scenes. The bad news is that Spike Jonze’s directorship is good but not incredible, and the movie ends up about thirty minutes too long – thirty minutes of fun fort-building and dirt clod fights, when there was clearly enough time to make the message clearer.

What did I get as the message? Well, I absolutely love the idea of monsters whose feelings are so big that they only experience them one at a time: the wild things are either wholly affectionate, excited, or angry (in another interesting Peter Pan parallel, for those who know the original). As near as I can tell, the wild things represent facets of Max’s own mind, or possibly his stuffed animals come to life – it’s not clear. They are simple, idealistic and excitable – but also lawless, and to be eaten by them is to lose one’s self. The point is, in attempting to be king over these volatile and irresponsible beings, Max learns to rule his own emotions instead of being consumed by them.

Where the Wild Things Are is a fairly entertaining ride for those who don’t mind being just a little confused. It is too long for adults, but makes its points too subtly for kids. The language in the film is quiet and infrequent, but totally unnecessary (why would the wild things’ vocabulary include words like ‘damn?’). One good thing is that the movie purposely feels unsafe, and even has some real moments of scariness, until Max returns home. This unsafeness even results in some rather inappropriate violence, when a wild thing’s wing gets torn off in an angry tussle. I didn’t know whether to be set at ease, or even more disturbed, by his nonplussed reaction at the sawdust that leaks out of the hole.

The movie has weak points, but its emotions are strong and its characters bring tears to the eye, leading up to an incredibly sweet final shot. We can only hope the DVD version will include a “reduced cut.”

Tobin

I haven't seen this film. At this point I will have to wait for the DVD to come out.

Mike

Top

Avatar

In 1982, Disney’s TRON changed computer animation history. In 2009, you have a chance to see Avatar do the same.

Think opera. The young artist falls in love with the beautiful call girl, only to be torn away from her by his family’s pride, only to win her back, only to discover she is dying of tuberculosis. Or something equally predictable. You don’t go to opera expecting a complex or meaningful story. You go expecting a stirring production with spectacular music and vocal talent – theatrical execution in the raw.

That is pretty much what you get from Avatar, only for the eyes, not the ears.

Our hero, crippled ex-marine Jake Sully, gets a new lease on life when scientists find they can temporarily place his consciousness into a fully functioning, genetically grown alien body via the kind of sleeper-tube device of which James Cameron’s science fiction is so fond. Sully’s mission: to walk among the primitive Na’vi society on the planet Pandora as one of them, to study these blue-skinned natives as an anthropologist – and to be a ready inside man in case the human landing plans go south. Because the military wants to clear the Na’vi out of the way so they can get at Pandora’s valuable ores. But as his love for the natives increases, Sully is torn between two loyalties, and ultimately leads the natives against the battleships and bulldozers that arrive to destroy their home.

As someone who craves rich storylines laden with symbolism and themes (such as James Cameron’s Aliens) I struggled not to be disappointed with Avatar until I realized that a rich story is not the point of the movie. What this movie has done is to bring a somewhat interesting story to life in a more interesting setting. And this is one setting that makes movie history.

In the 90s, computer animation really broke into the public consciousness. You remember: the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast with that amazing 3-D chandelier. Then came Babe, with its computer-manipulated talking animal mouths. Remember when computer animation was still so new that it got featured on Oprah? Then it became commonplace: a means for filmmakers to paste cool, invented backgrounds into their movies, or for George Lucas to impose annoying comic relief characters into his prequels. Then, with the help of Pixar’s innovators, the medium evolved until whole landscapes could be computer generated. But here at the end of the decade, gone are the weird settings of 300 and even the cartoonish backdrops of Journey to the Center of the Earth. Avatar gives us a backdrop that is both dazzling AND intimately involved with the story, in a degree of special-effects honesty that perhaps has not been achieved since What Dreams May Come. Avatar manages to be an effects movie, without becoming just another effects vehicle. Computer animation is no longer a gimmick.

The planet Pandora is not just a location where the story takes place; to a large extent it is the story, and Cameron uses the film’s three hour running time to immerse us in this world. Pandora glows in the heavens, like an otherworldly New Zealand covered in weird jungles of photosensitive plants, little dandelion puff jellyfish, and alien animals that are as believable as they are incredible.

The pacing is pretty drawn-out; while most movies can be distinctly broken into three acts, the three-hour Avatar seems to have four, taking time off from the “main” story in order to explore Pandora itself. Where an action movie might feel the need for a plot twist, Avatar gives us a topographical twist, taking us running, jumping, and vine-swinging to new and beautiful parts of the planet.

And there is plenty of action too. Both in his human body and in his Na’vi body, Sully gets into shootouts, chases and escapes, wrestles hyenas, tames a pterodactyl, and then leads a million blue natives with bows an arrows against the invading gunships. The science fiction concepts in the movie, right down to the design of the aircraft, are satisfyingly realistic without being overly technical. And the villain, a heartless and imperialistic colonel, is a bad guy worthy to be respected and feared. Action movie watchers will be bored with the amount of culture, nature and scenery that is presented before the explosions start, but that’s just immature.

I wanted to end on the line, “that’s just immature,” because it’s way funnier. But because this is a family site, I also need to say a few words about any in appropriate content in the film. The biggest problem with this movie, for most of our readers, is its political correctness. It is an obvious retelling of how the White man drove out the Red man, with a tad more bias against whites than an honest history book would let on. But, hey, I can agree with James Cameron that these atheist bulldozer drivers are not stewarding creation in any way close to the task Adam was given to do. This movie bashes greed, not America, and though it upholds a naturey, new-agey kind of religion, it bashes materialism, not Christianity. And when I see nature getting raped for something as transitory as money, well, Great God, I’d rather be a pagan.*

Christian families may be offended by the thinly veiled blue bosoms of the Na’vi women, and the bare buttocks of both sexes – whose Cowardly-Lion-ish tails apparently make butt coverings difficult. For me, there is a big difference between native semi-nudity (which is a costume) and sexualized nudity (in which clothed actors remove their costumes). Make it blue alien semi-nudity, and it’s even less of a stumbling block. Love interest Natiri, though gracefully and realistically animated, is not curvy in ways meant to stimulate a human audience – as we saw in Aliens, James Cameron likes to unsexualize his heroines so that we can get at the deeper essence of femininity without getting distracted from the story. (Sigourney Weaver and, later, Sam Worthington, are both seen, naked but tastefully covered, during medical procedures). There is one passionate kissing scene, but the camera cuts away before the audience is allowed to intrude upon anything private.

In Na’vi society, life, relationships, and commitment are pretty simple, and I found myself envying the incomplexity of Sully and Natiri’s wholesome commitment to one another. If you think two people aren’t really married unless they have tuxedos, guest lists, and a fancy church, you may have a problem with this movie. But that’s just ethnocentric.

*(William Wordsworth), http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/WorldIsTooMuch.html

Tobin

Our family went out to see Avatar together the other night (a family movie outing to the theatre is a rarity around here). I wasn’t actually sure just what to expect but the previews looked very interesting. Doe-eyed characters fighting a war with bows and arrows might be good movie fare.

When the film started, it had James Cameron written all over it. Being a big fan of his work with Terminator, Terminator 2, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the Alien films, True Lies, etc, I was hoping that the incredible detail for which he is known for requiring of his films would not be lacking. I was not disappointed.

Let’s go back a bit and take a look at the history of film and animation according to Mike. In the EARLY days of silent movies, there were some exceptionally talented film makers who worked seeming miracles with just a camera and tripod. Most of the effects were done “in camera” and through sheer trickery, we can watch characters walk through walls, balance on a steel beam hundreds of feet above the ground, and even hang on the arms of a clock above a busy intersection…all done with camera, paintings, and creative editing.

In the 40’- 60’s we were treated to hand drawn animation added directly onto the film to combine cartoon characters, talking animals, and even weapons fire much to the delight of the audiences.

Then came Star Wars. As I recall, George Lucas had to actually invent cameras and other machinery to take us on the amazing journey through space that that film took us on. The PC as we know it today was 4 years away when that film was made. I was in college at that time and we were shown things that we’d never seen before. The “jump to light speed” was STUNNING. We cheered.

After Star Wars was Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Other films followed and then…TRON. Tobin is quite a fan of TRON and perhaps he’ll review it some day. I thought that it was little more than a vehicle to demonstrate some computer graphics. My guess was that “they” had created some cool computer effects and then loosely (very loosely) written a story around them. However, TRON did bring CGI into the mainstream in 1982 and it was truly a breakthrough film.

As computers got more powerful, the CGI got better. In 1991 a truly amazing animated feature (using computers for much of the effects) was released. Anyone who has seen Disney’s Beauty and the Beast will remember the ballroom scene with the fly by’s, shadows, reflections etc that were included. I remember it as if it were yesterday and it still looks good even compared to today’s technology. Another breakthrough film.

Well, fast forward to today. In Avatar, gone are the silly looking computer animations. Gone are the jerky animated characters that look like they’ve been pasted into the movie. What we have in Avatar is a stunning and seamless integration of live and animated characters along with a wholly believable landscape on which the characters play out their story. To a certain extent, the stage IS a character in the film. In this area, this is yet another breakthrough film worthy of the awards I’m sure it will get. If for nothing else than to see the sheer beauty of the film, go see it.

Avatar has a good story. Not a GREAT story, but it is a good one, and interesting as well. The Na’Vi (Native?) are in danger of being run out of their home. The evil, money grubbing, amoral corporations have hired heartless mercenaries to clear them out so that their planet can be plundered of it’s valuable ores and minerals. Of course, the Home Tree (read rain forest) must be destroyed so that the mining equipment can be rolled in. A friend of mine dubbed the film “Dances With Wolves in Outer Space”. I can see the resemblance. The story is somewhat predictable but well played out. AND (take notes here, this is important) I didn’t get antsy even though it’s a 3 hour film. Avatar carries its weight in the “this is a good movie” department. It is paced well and holds interest throughout.

NOTE: When I watched the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, I was ready to leave after about three quarters through. Tobin mentioned that it was an hour and forty minute jammed into two hours.

You will want to know that there is a lot if Indian culture built into the film. Mother Earth, Star Wars type unifying Force, the thanking of an animal for it allowing itself to be killed for food, etc. I found the “worship services” uncomfortable and the entire “living, conscious planet” theme a bit much. However, in the universe that Cameron has created for us, it all works. I found the bonding method of characters plugging their braids into the receptacle on the animals that they wanted to tame a very interesting addition to the film.

Because of the language and violent images, I would not recommend this film for younger children.

Would I go see it again? Probably. With the caveats I have mentioned, I enjoyed the film and would recommend it to others.

Mike

Top

New Features

The Book of Eli

Eli walks by faith, not by sight.

When the church took the cultural back seat (sometime around 1966), choral music became just an interesting background for epic movie scenes. Latin lost its meaning because there was no-one to sing to. And now, in this world where YouTube comments stand a testament to the power of state education, English has lost its meaning because there's no-one to talk to. The sociologists tell us that words don't pass on ideas, they're just herd instinct - and we only need to glance at the way the media leads the flock to see that it's true. Ideas r abbrev'd 2 thr basest forms on the web, on children's television, and in everyday colloquy. Words have become castrated: a sound byte at best, room noise at worst.

Fast forward x hundred years and Denzel Washington is traversing a ravaged U.S. carrying the last King James Bible. If the loss of words did not cause the apocalypse in The Book of Eli, then it definitely fueled the barbarism that followed. Eli wanders through grim scenes of desolation where little speech is required. Even when meeting bands of illiterate thieves, verbal exchanges are brief. It is kill or be killed.

But Eli, while a man of few words, is never at a loss for them, quoting from his ancient book like an angel of destruction or a prophet of hope as occasion demands. His quest: obey the voice of God which told him to carry the Bible west. When Eli's path brings him onto the turf of Carnegie, an enterprising businessman/pimp who already owns one town and would like to expand his operation, he is offered a price for his skills with a sword. But Eli's martial abilities are not the most valuable thing he's packing. Carnegie wants the Book, because if he has the right words, the masses will come for miles to bow to him.

The critics who malign the film by saying Carnegie could simply have founded his own religion, instead of spending the whole movie tracking down the Bible, clearly don't understand the power of words, and haven't looked very hard at history, either - perhaps the kind of illiterate barbarism portrayed in The Book of Eli is nearer than we think. Words are the driving force in Eli's world, where illiteracy usually means either ruffianship or cannibalism, where people have forgotten how to pray. When Eli offers to share his food with a woman too young to remember the world before, the kindness is as alien to her as his next request: that she sit with him to eat it, and that they voice thanks to God.

Words, and specifically The Word, are shown to be the foundation of community. And, just as ideology peddlers use catchy words today, Carnegie seeks to use the words to found exactly the wrong kind of community. While the protestant bias here is only thinly veiled ("This has happened before. It will happen again," says Carnegie), the rightness or wrongness of the Medieval Roman Church is not the real point of the story. Christians of all strains should agree that the loss of words means the loss of culture and the enslavement of the soul. In this movie, the hope of the world lies in the preservation of books, and the Bible in particular.

Sure, the ending is a little implausible (just how much gas did they have in that tank?) and the script would need at least one more scene to feel truly fleshed out: in a disturbing scene a conflicted Eli continues on his way in the face of superior numbers, leaving a man to bleed and a woman to be raped, and it is never clarified whether the screenwriter believes that a good man with a bigger calling can only do so much, or whether this is meant to be a lapse in Eli's application of the Word - though we can give the script the benefit of the doubt. The barbarism I believed; that was less developed, perhaps because it required insights more delicate than the writer could handle, was the effect of that barbarism upon a man determined to hold onto humanity. But for all this, it is a movie that portrays religious conviction and command of words to be the two most solid things on the pockmarked earth.

Christians will lose the culture war if they do not support movies like this.

As a praise (or possibly a justification?) for the latest Chrindependent DVD (they actually screened it in a theater or two in Iowa!) I have often heard the phrase, "We need movies like this in Hollywood. 'Cuz, I mean, when was the last time you saw a positive portrayal of Christianity in a Hollywood film?"

My answer is always the same.

"All the time; because I actually go to Hollywood films."

Dear family of Christ, we live in a culture as morally barren as the deserts traveled by Eli, and we are the ones who did it. In 1966 the Motion Picture Association of America was founded in order to rate movies from within Hollywood. Until that time Hollywood voluntarily submitted its material to a board of pastors. The pastors were the ones who uninterestedly broke off the relationship, sealing the doors of Jerusalem to leave Athens to its own devices. The next forty-four years of media testify exactly how that separation turned out.

Can you imagine a time when Hollywood reached out to men of faith?

I can. Because, like I said, I go to Hollywood films.

Christians are the newest, most interesting demographic in film right now, both for producers, who want to attract our money, and for writers, who have suddenly realized that Christianity makes for interesting and solid characters. Tokens of Christianity are more and more used to identify characters as reliable fellows, and even films that have no intention of glorifying God have taken on a religious edge because religion is cool. Villainous corrupt movie clergymen are not an attack on the church - they are an acknowledgement that true clergy ought to be above such things. Dozens of films have portrayed our faith positively. Dozens of television programs have done the same and died unwatched because we were too lazy to update our assumptions about the media. Hollywood is giving us another chance. Like the masses in Eli, they want the power of the Word.

And how should we deliver that Word? In a clean, no-need-to-be-rated Christian DVD flick with shaky camerawork and shakier acting? We owe our God more. We owe Him the most relevant movie we can think up. And, in case you haven't been watching for the last forty-four years, a lot of what's relevant these days is R-rated.

Yes the bad guys in Eli drop the F bomb a lot. But we are as illiterate as they are if we fail to see that the screenwriter is trying to use this vocabulary to underscore their illiteracy - or if we assume this is the worst word our children can hear; the G bomb, after all, is the one that has one out of ten commandments devoted to it, and it only earns a PG rating. Yes, there is death and sexual slavery in this movie; because, yes, there is death and sexual slavery in our world. We do not live in a Disney world. We do not worship a Disney God who deals with Disney problems. Christian adults live in a real world, with a real God who is interested in real problems. People use ugly words to describe the ugly things around them. And we, as a church, need to grow up enough to accept movies that depict this world as it is - this a movie must do if it is to portray Truth as it is.

We live in a world where words, and the ideas associated with them, are dying. And if Christians do not jump into the conversation for once, we may soon find ourselves in the world of Eli.

Tobin

The Book of Eli is not a film from which you will walk away feeling happy and entertained. It has some of the same look and feel of the Mad Max series of the late 70's and early 80's. But then most post apocalyptic films are alike in that way. In some ways, I was reminded of The Omega Man (1971, starring Charleton Heston).

In the post apocalyptic world (PAW) the only government that exists is the guy who has the most and biggest thugs and the most and biggest guns. There is nothing to stop one person from taking advantage of others in any way imaginable. The final broken threads in the moral societal fabric are the common abuse of women and in some instances, cannibalism. Without God or eternal destiny to worry about, what little is left of social morals quickly disappears.

Most films have some sort of a Christ figure as a central character. He's the one who is self-sacrificing to the point of giving his life in some way as Christ did. In The Omega Man and I Am Legend, Charton Heston and Will Smith respectively gave their lives trying to help. In the Batman film, Dark Knight, Batman took the heat for something he didn't do for the betterment of society. In The Book of Eli, Eli is the Christ figure in that he was commanded to take his book "out west". That was 30 years ago, and he is still on his journey. (About the time I began to wonder why it had taken so long to get "out west", the character Solara asked Eli if he had gotten lost somewhere along the way.) For 30 years, Eli is being obedient to God's command in spite of myriad hardships, gang attacks, and lack of food and water. Even through the extremely hard times, Eli doesn't lose faith or initiative. He is focused solely on the goal and remains determined to carry out his assigned task, without regret or misgiving, even to the point of death. Likewise, Christ focused solely on his purpose for being on earth. (Please do not interpret my pointing out that in that there is a Christ figure in most stories that I am elevating Eli to the same level of Christ. By "Christ figure", I mean having one or more Christlike characteristics.)

The Book of Eli is surprisingly gentle with Eli's faith. He isn't ridiculed for it. Faith, however, is puzzling to those around him. God is so far out of the equation in this world, that to be thankful for much of ANYTHING is a paradigm shift. This is demonstrated when Eli sits down for a meal with Solara and insists on giving thanks for it with her. She is completely and utterly confused by the act. Interestingly however, she mimics the ritual with her mother during the next meal with her. I was quite taken with this scene.

The film was difficult to watch. I wasn't so much disturbed by the language, nor the sef-protecting violence as I was by the senseless violence of men against other men and the heart wrenching violence against defenseless women. From a cinematic standpoint, it was extremely well done. The bleak color levels and gritty contrast drew me into the story. I almost felt like I was actually in the desert with the characters.

Denzel Washington was, as in most everything he does, very believable in his role. I was able to immediately despise the bad guys and love the good guy.

With the prevalence of foul language and violence, I find it difficult to recommend this film. However, if you are interested in the PAW genre, and might like to get a glimpse of what this world would be like without the restraining power of the Holy Spirit, this would be a good film to see.

NOTE: The violence is very graphic in places. This is NOT comic book violence. It includes decapitation and limb severance. I would be remiss in not mentioning it.

Mike

Top

Product Search

Movie Listings

New Features

New Features

Shopping Basket

Specials

Mendenhall Glacier Sand

Pillars of History-The Hebrew Nation Part 1