Recently in Film Category

Food for thought from David Plotz discussing Evan Almighty:

Universal has hired a religious marketing firm to sell Evan Almighty to churches and religious leaders, hoping to capture the same hundreds of millions in Christ dollars raked in by The Passion, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Bruce Almighty. If they succeed, it will be tragic, not because Evan Almighty is unfunny (although it certainly is), but because it will validate Hollywood's embarrassingly stupid approach to religion and faith. If I were a believing man, movies like Evan would make me long for the days when Hollywood just ignored God.

[. . .]

You might argue that making a comedy about Noah's ark—one of the Bible's grimmest stories—is a bit like making a sex farce about the Rwandan genocide. But the problem is not the comic aspiration. VeggieTales is proof that Bible comedy based on unpleasant stories is possible. No, what's disturbing about Evan Almighty is its flaccid approach to faith. All that is compelling, moving, and profound about the Noah story has been systematically excised. In the Bible, God chooses Noah to survive because Noah is a righteous man. But Evan is faithless and stupid, and comes to believe in God only because God hammers him over the head with about 137 miracles. Any moron will believe when an omnipotent divine being appears in the back seat of his car and starts sending him pairs of lions and giraffes. The lesson of the Bible is that faith is hard, and unrewarding, and painful. Faith is belief when there are no giraffes.

As the father of a seventeen-yearmonth-old daughter I don't get out to see movies very often. This is not a big deal as I am really a book person rather than a movie person (not that you can't be both). It is harder on my wife as she is a much more visual person and loves to see movies on the big screen.

Saturday we were out with friends when the exhibit we were going to see at the local children's science museum was sold out. It was hot and muggy so we weren't sure what to do instead. A movie seemed like a good idea. Everyone wanted to see Superman Returns. My wife rationalized that our daughter Ella was tired and might very well take nap in the dark theater. I was skeptical but didn't want to be the party pooper. My wife and our friends agreed to take Ella to the lobby if she got to loud, etc.

So we went ahead and saw the movie. Two things: Ella didn't take a nap and I wished I had.

The first thing that defeated my wife's well intentioned plan to have our daughter sleep was the deafening loudness of the theater. When the previews came on the sound was so in your face loud that it scared Ella and, quite frankly, was a little loud for my taste. It was almost to the point of hurting your ears.

After the scary loudness, Ella was fine. The only problem was that she was bored. She didn't cry or anything but she began to chatter loudly and wanted to get up and walk around. Lisa had to take her to the lobby a couple of times and so missed chunks of the movie.

I felt bad, but it was her idea in the first place. Plus, the movie was so slow at the beginning that I was afraid I would miss the good parts if I left. Turns out the movie never really got much better.

***What follows is a review from a new contributor to Collected Miscellany, Josie. Hopefully she will be contributing movie and other reviews on a regular basis.***

“Hoot” (screenplay & direction by Will Shriner, based on the book by Carl Hiaasen), rated PG and hitting theaters May 5, contains all the expected elements of a classic children’s adventure: bullies, heroes, secret hideouts, and goofy comic relief. Three teenagers come to the defense of the burrowing owl and its young ones in the imaginary town of Coconut Cove, Florida. The threatened bird, native to the area, inhabits the future site of Mrs. Paula’s Pancake House and is itself a threat to the developer on the verge of becoming the first regional director of the corporation to build 100 pancake houses.

Undergirding the story line is a young adult’s struggle to fight for good in his own life, which is turned topsy-turvy by his father’s umpteenth job change and relocation in six years. Forced to “start all over” (new neighborhood, new school, new friends) the boy-becoming-man is given a fresh look at himself and rises to the challenge of becoming more of who he really is.

Inspiring? Absolutely. Realistic? Well… Hollywood seems to have managed to make a fairytale out of a greater global issue - humans dominating the earth without regard to the very things that make the earth work; except they gave theirs a trite and happy ending. Don’t let me spoil the movie for you. Allow me to lead you down a rabbit trail and challenge your worldview for a moment. Then we’ll get back to the review.

David Edelstein at Slate:

. . . this is an eerie, relentlessly grim, invasive little movie-a tone poem of despair that seeps into you like the damp. It's the sort of film that, even in midsummer, makes you wish you'd brought along a couple of heavy sweaters. And maybe an umbrella.

Thomas Hibbs at National Review Online:

"I'm not crazy," the main character, Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly), exclaims at one point in the new film Dark Water. Given that she is haunted by bad memories of her wicked mother, lives in an apartment with multiple leaks, and has a hard time distinguishing her own daughter from the ghost who lives upstairs, the temptation to judge her insane is pretty strong. She is saved from this judgment by the fact that the film and Connelly's role in particular are simply fatuous, in the vapid horror-film sense that every decision she makes seems designed for predictably bad results. With only one marginally creepy scene toward the end, this film is a real contender for worst film released this year.

Went and saw Team America: World Police at the cheap theatre last night. Wow. That was the weirdest, most vulgar, most absurd, most hard to describe, least predictable, didn't want to laugh but did anyway, type of movie I have ever seen.

The way it skewers Hollywood tropes and actors is hilarious. And the fact that everyone is a marionette adds to the absurdity. But the vulgarity and so far over-the-top it's at the bottom attitude makes it hard to watch at times. Definitely not aimed for families or anyone with a sensitivity to such things. My favorites were the songs. "I missed you as much as Pearl Harbor [the movie] sucked" and Kim Il Song's rendition of "RONERY" were very funny. It also cracked me up when Gary went into the terrorist's tavern and it was just like the alien bar scene from Star Wars.

Overall, I will admit that I laughed but I will also add that this is not a movie I would see again or necessarily recommend to others. I have had my fill of marionette sex, puking, swearing, and blood splattering. It is definitely anti-pc and anti-Hollywood to a degree, but I don't think it reflects well on our culture.

It is hard to over-estimate the challenge Mel Gibson set for himself in making The Passion. Its subject matter is one sure to offend a variety of people regardless of how it turned out. For Christians it is at the heart of their faith. For many non-believers it is a bizarre religious story. For Jews it brings up uncomfortable and fearful connections with persecution and violence. What are the odds that he could make a film that wouldn't arouse emotion and controversy?

As we all know by now, he obviously failed to escape the trap he set for himself. The movie has aroused controversy, anger, and vitriol as well as praise and appreciation. In fact its dominance as a cultural topic was a big reason I went to see the film. I should admit as a caveat that I am not really a movie person. Oh sure I enjoy them like everybody else but they are not my medium of choice. I much prefer books. I am not a visual person, although I know what I like, and do better with the written word. But given my faith and my interest in popular culture, I felt I needed to see this film and interact with it. What follows are my thoughts and ideas having seen the film and read quite a bit about it.

Coming away from the film I was at a loss to describe my feelings. I had a very heavy heart despite the happy ending and the bright sunshine that blinded me as I exited the theatre. I felt the weight of the subject. I believe that Christ died to pay for my sins and the sins of all mankind. I believe Christ death and resurrection compose the central acts of human history. Because of this, I couldn't really just leave the film laughing and joking around. In many ways, I wanted to put some distance between me and the events portrayed on screen but in more important ways I wanted to digest them. I felt pushed and pulled going into the film and I felt that way coming out.

After another day to think about the film, I have been unable to get past my ambivalence or conflicted feelings about the film. In some aspects the film was a powerful portrayal of the last days of Christ and of his message. But in other ways it was a weird and confusing mass of symbols and events. In my humble opinion it is not a great film as a whole but given the subject and the realism it can't help but impact people of faith. Here are some thoughts ("spoilers" included):

I will admit something, I am of two minds about watching Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. On one hand I am interested in being able to participate in the general discussion and especially one that centers around such a crucial area of faith. I am generally pleased that the life of Christ is the subject of general discussion and debate as Mark Byron points out.

On the other hand, I am not a big fan of visual brutality and the movie is reported to have a great deal. I wonder if all of the blood and violence might be too much. I am also concerned about the focus on the the Crucifixion with little emphasis on the resurrection. Call me squeamish if you will but a critic I respect a great deal, James Bowman felt the movie was a bit of a mess structurally and thematically.

I am not as judgemental as Gregg Easterbrook, but I am somewhat conflicted. I guess I will have to see the movie (probably this weekend) and make my own judgment. I'll let you know how it turns out.

UPDATE: See Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic for more.

If for some reason you haven't read Ben Domenech's discussion of Image and Faith in the movies Cold Mountain and Return of the King please do so now. When Ben is on - since he has a day job like the rest of us he is not as prolific as he once was - he writes some of the best cultural commentary around. Be sure to check it out if you haven't already.

I just came across this Jonathan Last critique of Return of the King: The End of the Ring. In it Last compares the third installment of the trilogy to the first two and finds it wanting:

WITH "RETURN OF THE KING" Jackson's juggling act falls apart and the chainsaws which he had kept so nimbly under control gouge and mar his final chapter . . . IRONICALLY, Jackson's biggest failing this time out comes in the area of his greatest strength: pacing. The script has trouble with compression, compacting days into minutes without adequately portraying the passage of time. The story, which takes place over several weeks, plays as if it spans just a day or three and involves much wasted motion . . . The script has characters hurtling from point to point, battle to battle, conclusion to conclusion, so rapidly that it's both exhausting and numbing.

While I think Last makes some valid points, I think he misses the forest for the trees. I think Jonah was more on target:

I guess my problem is that I really don't see the Lord of the Rings series as a trilogy in the first place. I'm on solid footing when I say this because neither did J. R. R. Tolkien (cue crazed-fan crowd roar), nor did Peter Jackson (cue slightly less crazed, but still disturbing, roar). The Lord of the Rings was written as one book ? with two fingers, banged on a typewriter for half a million words ? and the publisher insisted it be cut into three parts. For various reasons ? technical, emotional, financial ? Jackson emulated Tolkien and shot the whole film in one giant piece. In other words, this is a ten-hour movie.

If you try and look a the movies totally independent of each other I think you miss something. I agree that the first movie was the best as a conventional movie. The action and plot were the tightest. Fellowship of the Ring simply pulled you along. It's action scene were focused on individuals; they were close and intense.

Wow. Perhaps it is exhaustion (the movie started at midnight and was a good three hourse plus, add getting out of the parking lot, etc. and I am running on little sleep) but I am having a hard time desribing this amazing film. It is magestic and elegant; sweeping and poignant; breathtaking and heartwarming. It was by far the most aestheticaly pleasing movie of the three. Jackson weaves the story lines and the symbols with loving care and artistic genius. To be spellbound by a movie where you basically know the story beforehand is quite amazing.

What struck me was how Jackson managed to keep the movie within itself when it so easily could have been "over-the-top." There was obviously a great deal of special effects that went into the movie, from the battle scenes to the giant cities to the frightening variety of evil characters, but it never feels fake. The artistry that allows the focus to remain on the characters and their quest is awesome. The whole thing makes the recent Star Wars movies seem like a joke. Or as Slate's David Edelstein says:

Jackson brings an intensity to the battle of good and evil that makes the stiff, well-mannered drones of George Lucas' Star Wars epics look like stick figures in a bad, Japanese-made Saturday-morning cartoon.

Watching this film is like staring at a massive work of art. You are awed, excited, and pulled in.

****Warning: Spoilers Ahead****

- The opening scene with Smeagol/Gollum and the finding of the Ring was a great way to bring you back into the story. And it introduces a key theme: that the ring brings evil with it everywhere it goes. Power corrupts. Each ring bearer begins to develop selfish, dark, and ultimately murderous urges. The film begins with this process and it is present throughout, right up to the final demise of the ring itself.

- As I am sure you have already heard, the batlle scenes are simply amazing in scope and size. This film is truly epic. I fear that the small screen of TV/VCR/DVD will not be able to contain it. But the battles are not really that gorey or bloody. They represent the conflict between good and evil not violence for violence sake. They also felt realistic and true despite their obvious fantastic nature. Again, I wasn't focused on the special effects but caught up in the moment. The elephants are really cool as are the always fearful Naizgul and their fell beasts. I particularly enjoyed the scenes where the Rhohan join the battle and the way the cavelry swept into the orc lines.

- Jackson handles the encounter with Shelob very well. The nasty spider is creepy and the fight scene was exciting but crisp. The way the orcs fall out so that Sam can come in and save the day is also well done. Jackson manages to tell the story without getting bogged down. This was one of my favorite tension filled parts of the book but the detail is not possible in a movie even of this length.

- Pippin's run in with the Palentir was a little odd. Not only was it transferred from the camp on the way to Edoras to Edoras proper, The Palentir is only mentioned this once and not brought up again. You never see Denethor use his or speak of it, although he does tell Gandalf about what he has "seen."

- The climatic scene with the destruction of the ring is seemed true to the book, although Frodo's character change at the end would be startling if you didn't know it was coming. It seemed he wrestled with the dark side more in the second film. Jackson does a great job of holding you in that moment when the ring is being destroyed. Just when things look hopeless, the ring melts away and Sauron is destroyed and his kingdom with him.

- Finding a place to end the movie was no easy matter. Jackson skips the Scouring of the Shire, which is admittedly an important part of the book, and that will be a disappointment to those who love the books. But I am not sure Jackson had a choice. That story is simply to complex to include without extending the movie beyond reason. As it is, he lets you down gently from the high of celebration atop Minas Tirith. Having the hobbits return to the Shire with it still in tact is jolting but your smile returns when you see Sam getting married.

- The scene with the elves, Bilbo, Gandalph, and Frodo returning across the sea was touching and hit just the right note. It gives you a warm feeling in your heart and leaves you satisfied if a little melancholy; just like the book.

Any complaints are really trivial. I sat spellbound and wide-eyed throughout the entire film just trying to soak as much of it in as I could. I am sure I will go back and try to see and learn new things. With a masterpiece of this magnitude one can do so again and again.