Change Your Image
Groovey
Reviews
Avatar (2009)
Opens a new era in 3D films
This is an amazing film. Definitely see this in 3D in the theater.
What makes it amazing is not the plot, which is classic, nor the many agendas of the makers. The original Star Wars had a similarly classic plot. The agendas are going to be offensive to some, but are not fanatical in their presentation.
What makes the movie amazing is the motion capture aliens and the use of 3D as just another tool in cinematography. Putting the human expression from real actors works here as it did for Andy Serkis as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. It makes the aliens believably complex.
Rather than use 3D as a gimmick to make the audience jump, or even as a way to give depth to scenes the way it was done in G-Force, the makers chose to use it as a tool to lend realism to the movie. It just works.
When you move through the alien landscape, the 3D motion brings you into it with much greater realism than is possible with standard film. It does not jump at you. At times it is subtle enough that it is easy to forget it is there -- but it always IS there. I think we will mark this movie as the real beginning of the 3D era in film.
The subtexts in this movie are many, and range from subtle and fascinating (technological vs biological avatars; technology vs life; reality vs fantasy) to blatant (mercenary behavior; living earth). They are not, however, just thrown at the viewer. There is more solid underpinnings to each of them in the story than you typically find in movies with agendas. In other words, it is a specific story with believable characters and motion, and the agendas actually fit the story and enhance it, rather than jump out as sermons.
I do very much hope this will eventually come out as a 3D blu-ray. The use of 3D in this movie will make many people want to get it that way.
Bee Season (2005)
An attempt to be mystical that just doesn't work
Several other reviewers have commented on the fractured nature of this film. It appears to be a Kabbalistic approach to healing shattered reality, put together as a parable.
I know very little about Kabbalism, so that may be why so many pieces were nonsensical to me. Some things, however, were clear on reflection. Eliza's choice at the end was a redemptive sacrifice. It was a way of turning Saul's obsession back upon itself, so he, when he was brought up short by the apparent disaster, would be accessible once again to his family. The final implications are that she is successful in this, and happy with her choice. Eliza also connects with her mother through the camera, and apparently starts her back on the road to healing.
There are some very nice uses of glass and kaleidoscope imagery as metaphors of shattered personality and lives, particularly for the mother, but for all the characters to some extent.
All of that makes sense, but as a whole, it just doesn't work. The mother has apparently been in a psychotic break for many years, and no one noticed? The son, who seems to have a close relationship with both his father and his sister, responds to the father's extra time with Eliza for the bee with petulant jealousy, and finally runs off to join the Hari Krishnas, without any indication of why he is searching or why the traditions of his family do not work for him. His motivation seems to be nothing more than an exceedingly pretty face.
The daughter, Eliza, is the hardest one to believe of all -- even though she is masterfully represented. In an unusual form of Deus Ex Machina, she restores the shattered family by having paranormal abilities, and then denying those abilities as a sacrifice to redeem the ones she loves. (I suspect this is part of Kabbalistic mysticism, but I don't know.) In one spoken letter, she brings sanity back to her shattered family, reeling in all the fragmented pieces, just as her father had described, and her mother had tried and failed to do. It's a nice idea for a parable, but I found the final answer too pat, the mystical portions glossing over frightful danger, and the pain of the family both believably intense yet unbelievably represented, and I could not believe the solution.
Maybe it is because my own spiritual views are vastly different from the writers, but it was painful to watch, and neither satisfying nor helpful.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Outstanding Book Adaptation
Children's fantasy is a most difficult genre to adapt for the screen, because the agendas of book and screen are so different. Fantasy allows such swift and non-rational changes that capturing it on a movie screen is much more difficult than painting the pictures in your head with words.
Even with all the nice trailers, hype and good reviews, I went to see this with no small amount of trepidation. I first read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe about 40 years ago, and I've probably read it more than a dozen times since then. I was afraid that no amount of skillful CGI could make a convincing Aslan. More than that, I was afraid of a Disney-fied movie that washed out the messages in the movie, or included propaganda for various causes.
I was wrong. This film succeeds in bringing Narnia to life beyond my wildest expectations. Aslan is believable, as is the witch.
Most wonderful of all, however, is what they have done with the plot: almost nothing. There are quite a few changes in things for flow, but not a single one significantly affects the the story. No wonder, with a member of the Lewis family watching over every word and every scene. (I'm sure there will be "purists" who will scream because the beavers look like real beavers instead of furry people who wear clothes, who object to other little things as well, but who nevertheless missed the movie.) I can't judge how someone who has never read the Narnia books would read it, because they are written too deeply into my soul to set aside. I think those who had not read the books would nevertheless love the movie, but I cannot be sure. If you have read the books and wondered if the movie is up to the books, wonder no more.
It is possibly the best book adaptation I have ever seen. The Lord of the Rings was an excellent adaptation, but it took a lot of liberties with the characters and plot. I think, on the whole, the adaptations were good, but there were several places in that most excellent trilogy where the characterization changes bothered me. Not so here.
These are indeed the beloved characters and story from the book.
Don't miss this film. Go see it in the theatres, if you can.
Elf (2003)
Was not believable
I could not believe this movie at all. So many of the comments are about what a wonderful movie this is, and I watched this with my children in great anticipation, but I kept wondering, would anyone want to watch this more than once? I like sappy Christmas movies; they are fun. I even like fantasies based on a silly premise. To work, however, there must be some semblance of believability.
The Elf character was so much over the top, that even as a non-human in a human body, he didn't quite fit reality. From the premise in the movie, elves are hard-working, optimistic, and encouraging, but they are not stupid. It was the other characters, though, that really stood out. When Buddy was doing his silly stuff, the other characters just stood there as if they were waiting for him to finish his lines, instead of reacting as you would expect New Yorkers to react to a wacko like that.
James Caan was believable, but no one else was. That has to be laid at the feet of the writer and/or director.
My opinion is clearly in the minority, but I thought this was one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time.
Secondhand Lions (2003)
A delightful surprise
This film is a wonderful surprise. The script is good, although there are some areas where the writing could probably be better. There are two things, however, that make this movie stand out as something extraordinary.
The first is the sub-text, which is the artistic core that drives all works of art, and always separates good movies from great ones. This movie is about integrity of self, believing in what you can do, finding goals not rooted in money or power, choosing to live, and valuing life. Yet it is not in the least amount preachy.
The biggest thing that makes this movie extraordinary is the acting. Robert Duvall, Michael Caine, and Haley Joel Osment have 13 Oscar nominations (and 3 Oscars) between the three of them. The chemistry of the three is what makes this movie so special.
It's a wonderful, fun, feel-good movie, and it has a good moral basis besides. Well worth watching.
Bend It Like Beckham (2002)
A deceptively light story encouraging rejection of family values
Bend It Like Beckham is a fun and touching exploration of a girl's desires to excel in the face of immense cultural opposition. Along the way, it has a lot to say about stereotypes.
While I found the story somewhat interesting although very predictable, I kept waiting for the underlying values to come through all the opposition. It finally dawned on me that the rejection of everything traditional *was* the underlying value.
Religious and cultural mores are by definition wrong; follow your heart and ignore any consequences. It seems to work great for the protagonist here; how well would it work for a young man who doesn't have the strong family Jess has, who is struggling with a drug addiction and thinking about robbing a liquor store for the much-needed cash? Maybe the moral here is not as lofty as it seems.
There is a mix of a lot of different things thrown together in this film, such as tying multiple different prejudices to family traditions, showing that girls are really better than boys, and indicating through the displayed family attitudes that any moral objections to anything are rooted in immorality -- a nicely circular argument.
One very good note in this is when Jess finally refuses to lie to her parents any more. She is making an existential stand and decides to do what she believes is right. That her decision to do so is completely apart from respect for family values, though, is clear enough.
I can see why so many young women like this movie. As a father, I found it troubling to say the least.
Legally Blonde (2001)
Light, funny parable on being yourself
I was surprised to enjoy this movie as much as I did. It is a light-hearted comedy about a classic "dumb blond" who goes to Harvard Law School, and turns out, of course, to be brilliant under the plastic exterior.
The real irony of this, though, is that Elle comes across as the empty socialite at the beginning, but she is still the same character at the very end. Instead of being either destroyed or transformed by the stuffy and repressive environment of Harvard Law, she stands up to it, and ends up making a mark on the school itself.
Her character represents the epitome of shallow, and she is rejected by the man she expects to marry because she is shallow, yet by holding true to herself through some pretty unbearable situations, she is able to work through her circumstances. As she does so, we begin to see her develop depth that flies in the face of the stereotype. She begins to excel without losing her facade. The characters who spurned her for being shallow are shown themselves to be shallow and inauthentic, while she develops considerable depth while remaining herself.
I like the way it makes fun of the stereotypes while pushing through them in a demonstration of strength of character. You can be as out-of-the-tree as you want and make it work, if you believe in yourself enough.
Besides all of that, it's a fun movie. Favorite line: the one about the hot tub.
Forces of Nature (1999)
NOT your typical chick flick
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
This movie has been under-rated. It bears the shape of a romantic comedy, and yet has a very interesting twist to it. If you are looking for a tried-and-true fluff movie, you may well be disappointed. If you are looking for a fun movie that actually has some profound things to say about life, this is a good one.
The plot is a simple one, and somewhat worn: a man (Ben Affleck) is trying to get from New York to Savannah for his wedding, and everything in the universe seems to be conspiring to keep him from getting there, and to convince him not to get married. Meanwhile, his fiancee is being wooed by her old boyfriend in Savannah while a hurricane is bearing down on the planned outdoor wedding.
Along the way, Affleck finds himself traveling with a totally free spirit (Sandra Bullock,) while one disaster after another befalls them. Affleck starts to fall for Bullock, of course, while every single person or thing in the universe is telling him that getting married is a bad idea -- including Bullock herself. Each learns some things from the other, and eventually they get to the wedding and the movie's conclusion.
If that were all there were to the movie, it would get a mediocre rating from me. Neither Bullock nor Affleck really shine in this movie, although their chemistry is pretty good, and the plot is fairly stale. Fortunately, there is a lot more to be had there.
All I will say about the ending is that it is not what you expect. There is a theme throughout the movie, however, and that seems to be what holds it all together, and turns an okay movie into a very good one.
The title of the movie says what this film is about. It is about forces of nature -- things you cannot control, and can only live with, like hurricanes, seagulls, lightning strikes, hailstorms, etc. What I thought was obvious -- but apparently is not -- is that Sandra Bullock's character Sarah is the principal force of nature the movie is about.
Sarah is a living tornado, a dynamic, spinning, agent of chaos. She is a very fun-loving person, but is suffering from the consequences of being that kind of person. Being that way has a price you don't often see in the movies. She is not only a free spirit, she is in a great deal of pain as the result of her past "free" actions. Ben's character (Ben) is a book cover blurb writer, who is in just as much pain from his dweebish lifestyle, except that he doesn't know it.
We have a classic pairing of the free spirit with the anal retentive, letting each learn from the other, but what both have to learn is how to live with forces of nature. Ben must learn how to "go with the flow" of the disasters life throws at him, to enjoy himself, and not to worry much about maintaining his balance. Sarah must learn that she *is* a force of nature, that she causes wreck and ruin, but that she also has to learn to regain her balance after the ride to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.
The formula of this pairing is an ancient one, but this movie takes what they learn to a much more healthy conclusion than you normally find. Perhaps disappointing if you just want a romantic fluff movie, it has some very good things to say, and yet has enough fluff to be interesting to the "I want fluff" crowd.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Striking, vivid, unbearably painful, and not to be missed.
This film engraves the core story of one of the world's great religions in exquisite detail. Irrespective of one's beliefs, the human suffering depicted cannot be watched without compassion, yet it is well worth the effort. Christianity has had great impact upon the modern world, and all who would understand this world must understand Christianity, even if they don't share its tenets.
The story begins with Jesus praying in the garden, and ends with the resurrection. It is accurate to the Bible, with material filled in from tradition with a little dramatic license -- but believable and consistent with Biblical text.
SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW
The realism is staggering. The film is in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, with subtitles. While I don't speak any of those languages, I understood enough of each to realize that they were authentic and close enough to accurate as not to matter.
When Pilate questions Jesus, he does so in Aramaic, and Jesus answers in Aramaic. When Pilate is shaken by Jesus' responses, he unthinkingly switches to Latin, and Jesus then replies in Latin -- a language which no Jewish carpenter would have known. A background detail that no one would pick up on unless they had some familiarity with the languages, it points again to Jesus' divinity. Similarly, when Aramaic arguments are interlaced with Hebrew quotes and ritual, the languages are distinct.
You may not think you would care, but it brings a vividness and reality into the story that cannot be denied. Each language has a different feel, carried into the portrayal of the characters. Even if English is your only language, it matters.
Many have objected to the level of suffering displayed, yet differences between this picture and vastly more violent movies (such as all the Terminator movies, for example) are worth examining.
In most violent movies, the violence is unnecessarily grotesque, gratuitous, not compelled by the story, and clearly there to frighten and thrill the audience. Bad guys suffer because the audience, having identified with the good guys, wants to see them suffer. Good guys struggle because victory must be hard-won to be prized. Gratuitous violence along the way makes the ride more "fun" for the audience.
In The Passion of Christ, there is no gratuitous violence at all. None. It is all compelled by the story, for it is portrayed exactly as it is described in the historical records available. No one will walk away from this movie, point a toy gun (or a real one) at another, and say, "Make my day." No one will identify with the bad guys and play, "let's crucify him." No one -- other than the genuinely sick -- will be thrilled by the violence in this movie at all.
Yet in this day of instant gratification, comfortable living, and compromised religion, this picture testifies to the cost of discipleship. No matter what your personal beliefs, the story of the crucifixion, as told in The Passion of Christ, is a dramatic story of commitment and love beyond anything else in human history. It is well worth watching for this reason alone.
The billions who do not consider themselves Christian in any sense should consider seeing this film as a means of understanding who Christians believe they are called to follow and be. The millions who consider themselves Christians should all see this film as a means of understanding exactly the same thing. We are all -- both Christians and non-Christians -- easily fooled into thinking Christianity has to do with acting a certain way, belonging to a particular group, or even living by a certain set of rules. According to Jesus, it is not about any of those things. Rather, it is about his willingness to suffer and die for us, in our places. As this film so powerfully reminds us, Christianity is about Jesus, not about us. The portrayal of salvation in this film is artless, Biblical, and (mostly) unadorned by later interpretation.
Those who think of themselves as Christians, yet don't want to face the discomfort seeing this film will undoubtedly bring, must ask themselves what the word Christian means, if it does not mean following the subject of this story. After all, the primary interpretation is that we deserve what happened to Jesus, but he willingly took our punishment for us. If we are unwilling to face the greatest sacrifice ever made for us, do we really want any part of him at all? Is the cross, then, just a popular and convenient piece of ornamental jewelry, or is it something that represents a price paid for us, even a price we are willing to pay in return?
One caveat: I agree with those who say that this film is not for children. Everyone is different, but it may not be wise to let children under the age of twelve or so see this film.
Another thing this film has been criticized for is its supposed anti-Semitism. I could not disagree more completely, and I suspect that opinion was written (or at least mentally formed) before the promulgator of it had even seen the film. The High Priest is clearly an evil man, and he does incite the Jews to ask for Jesus to be crucified, but the individual Jews are represented very differently. The most inflammatory quote from the Biblical text was deliberately kept out of the movie, to avoid misinterpretation of it as anti-Semitic. The Jew who was pressed into carrying the cross for Jesus was shown to be a good Jew who nevertheless didn't know anything about Jesus. He reacted to his circumstances with courage, reason, and compassion.
In fact, *every* good character in the movie is a good Jew, with the single exception of Pilate's wife.
The first few minutes illustrate its central message of love, as Jesus stops his tormentors as they are in the process of taking him away, so he can heal the ear of one of them. The only miracle in the entire film (other than the resurrection,) it shows us Jesus' divinity and his commitment to love.
Following Jesus is not about rules or creeds -- although rules and creeds are important, and were important to Jesus. It is about the price paid for us. It is about acknowledging he took the penalty we deserved. It is about allowing ourselves to be loved enough to be forgiven, and then turning around to show that much love again to others.
He walked that unbearably painful path for you and me.
Don't miss this film.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Go See It! Fascinating Expansion from Fellowship of the Ring
This is an awesome movie. I've seen it twice now, and I'll probably see it twice more before it leaves the theatres.
Part two continues the outstanding work done on Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. There is a bit more liberty taken with the plot in this one, but with good pacing and balance. The book tends to drag quite a bit in the second volume, as very long plot lines are developed, and the movie does a very good job of keeping things moving with both action and plot development.
The special effects are state of the art, and very creative. The Ents were particularly well done. Wargs, which look more like the hyenas in "The Lion King" than anything else, were quite good as well. The flying Nazgul didn't quite fly right, but was otherwise very realistic. Gollum is heart-wrenchingly pathetic, and utterly believable.
The cinematography is actually better in this movie than the first, if you can believe it, and the acting shows at least as much depth. Go see it in the theatre!
Don't sit in the front rows for this one, unless you are not prone to motion sickness. There are *many* full-speed, full-screen action shots that are breathtaking, but could be rough on your inner ear if you are up front.
There are some surprises in here for Tolkien fans. The writers worked some new things in for Aragorn, presumably to make the relationships with Eowyn and Arwen develop well on-screen. The new twists work, and are like the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel in the first book: they actually strengthen the plot rather than weaken it.
There is one major departure from Tolkien which bothers me about this movie, however, and it is the same thing that bothered me about Fellowship of the Ring. Tolkien was painting a very believable fantasy world in which there was nevertheless true nobility in the midst of easily swayed and tempted creatures. Aragorn represents a return to a more noble state of humanity -- Elrond even calls him the image of the earliest kings in glory undiminished from the beginning. Yet Aragorn in the Fellowship movie comes across as a lost soul who has turned away from his destiny, rather than the true king awaiting his time. He does seem to be developing his character in the Two Towers, however, and is beginning to show something of a kingly nature.
In the same fashion, Faramir supposedly hearkens back to the earlier days of Gondor, in which there was true greatness among the people of Gondor. Yet in the movie, Faramir is just as weak, just as fallen, as Boromir. His actions towards Frodo, Sam, and the Ring are even more debased than Boromir's, and more alarming. He does realize his error, but it seems unnecessary.
Boromir's and Faramir's father Denethor (not in this movie, but in the next) we can expect to be like this, so Faramir represents the counterpoint. Denethor and Faramir are good and great men, father and son. One chooses pride as a way of life, and lords it over a kingdom as Steward in a losing war. The other chooses humility as a way of life, and finds in service a greatness beyond that of his father.
Part of what makes LOTR one of the greater literary works of the past century is its ability to communicate that we all do face choices between Valinor and Mordor (essentially heaven and hell), we do not have to be born the heir of kings to live nobly, and real examples do exist, for we all have the seeds of greatness within ourselves. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin are all very ordinary characters, but they all achieve a kind of greatness through their struggles. I think Tolkien would say, "So may we all."