Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 48 >>
07/13/10
Mel Gibson seems like a disturbed man. His statements give many examples of bad values. He mentions race and negative behaviors together, as if they're necessarily linked. He commits violence against women, almost certainly not out of self-defense. He feels that his money entitles him to certain considerations he wouldn't warrant otherwise.
Some thoughts:
1. Sometimes people slip into a sin spiral where they perform progressively immoral acts. Some people can climb back up while others continue to their death. Money and fame can delay the point at which a person stops his decent.
2. Nonetheless, until death, regeneration is always possible.
3. Mel Gibson claims to be a Christian. Nothing in his behavior is Christian starting with his abandonment of a licit marriage. Had he stubbornly followed Christian teaching, fighting his baser desires, he wouldn't be in this position.
4. Assessing the reaction to Polanski, Jackson, and Gibson, Hollywood career can survive sex with underage minors or the allegation of it, at least, but not racism.
5. Men can exploit Mel Gibson for some mischievous fun. Play the recording for your significant other and pretend to defend Mel Gibson. Say something like:
"It's hard to make a judgment without seeing the dress. Was it strapless? Did the skirt have a slit."
Big fun. Have flowers handy with a card that proves you were kidding.
06/29/10
If she's not right next to you, chances are she's watching Elipse, the new Twilight movie. I was actually going to go with her to share this moment with her. I promised not to play sword fights with the boys or talk to her friends. Negotiations continued, but after sitting 4 rows apart and not acknowleging her presence didn't satisfy her, I gave up and returned my tickets. I have to work tomorrow anyways.
She's safe. My wife seems to like these movies as much as Samantha does and went with her. What's the worst that can happen, anyways: a riot between Team Jacob and Team Edward?
), 06:59:03 pm, 126 words PermalinkCategories: Now playing at a theater near you, Art :: 2 comments »
06/12/10
I grew up with many examples of shows preying upon boomer nostalgia. I liked them. I listened to the oldies station, KRTH, watched Happy Days, and greatly enjoyed the Dick Clark specials. It never occurred to me that one day people would plot ways to exploit my own emotional attachments to my youth.
The A-Team was one of my favorite shows (along with the White Shadow, St. Elsewhere, Buck Rogers, and the Bionic Man and B-Woman). My friends Brian, Tom, Javier and I called ourselves "The A-Team," each of us assuming a character.
The A-Team recycled the same situation every week, but that situation was wrapped within a great premise: elite fugitives with hearts of gold roaming the nation saving distressed damsels and presented through fun, archetypal characters: Face, a cool ladies man; Murdock, a crazy pilot; B.A., a cross between MacGyver, Jim Brown, and Little John; and Hannibal, the brilliant tactician and natural leader.
The 2010 version remains loyal to what was best about the TV show: The characters are indeed very likable without being over-done or parodies. They're good morally in that irreverent, independent style that Americans still admire even as we glide into Euro-wienie-hood.
What's more complicated this time is the story. Instead of the A-Team stopping in Bishop, California and assisting an attractive girl being forced off her land by her deceased dad's thuggish former partner, we get an effective, if improbable, origin story involving corrupt Mexican police, and a complicated, twisty plot.
That plot is tight and well-paced, consisting of a series of plan executions "coming together," the last one in an especially interesting way. I liked the way the A-Team's undertaking unfolds on screen as they're contriving it. The action special effects stand out even in this age's high standard. Murdock is funny. The CIA agent is very good. Jessica Biel.
The A-Team reminds me of G.I. Joe from last year which was also surprisingly good.
Politics/Message:
One of the subplots has B.A. choosing a non-violent path. I'm always worried when Hollywood goes for depth, but the writers handle it well, having B.A. consider a seemingly contradictory quotation from Ghandi. B.A. delving into Christianity or Islam would have been out-of-place in this light-hearted movie.
The movie loves Rangers and the military. The bad guys are a mix of PC and un-PC: CIA, corrupt Mexicans, Iraqis, and Blackwater-like private security.
), 12:32:36 am, 430 words PermalinkCategories: Now playing at a theater near you :: Leave a comment »
05/29/10
I don’t have high hopes for movies based on video games (although Dungeon Siege is a guilty pleasure and Doom wasn't that bad) Prince of Persia easily leaped over my expectations.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale [Blu-ray]
Prince Dastan is a low-born man adopted by the king after the king witnesses Dastan courageously protecting another child in the city.
Dastan leads his special forces unit into Alamut, a sacred city (Prince of Persia is set in the pagan Middle East so nobody has to worry about fatwas) thought by Dastan's brother, Prince Tus, to be selling weapons to Persia’s enemies. Princess Tamina (sizzling-sexy Gemma Atherton) keeps a magical dagger that allows its wielder to travel back in time. She escapes with Dastan who was just accused of killing his father.
On the way, Dastan and Tamina meet a gang of Ostrich racing tax dodgers, one of whom is a cool Sudanese knife thrower. Their task is to prevent the dagger from falling into the wrong hand, which isn't easy considering all the snake-wielding, sand-spinning Hassassins after him.
Is PoP standard action-comedy? Yes. Standards are there for a reason, however, and if the ingredients to the recipe are of good-enough quality and competently prepared, a fine meal can be had, which is the case here. PoP reminds me of another great formulaic movie, The Mummy. If you liked that, you'll be fine with PoP.
Mummy Trilogy (The Mummy | The Mummy Returns | The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor) [Blu-ray]
Time traveling movies are difficult to pull off, but PoP does a good job of keeping it simple. My wife and I liked that Tamina exhibited a feminine strength. The love story is well-executed. I didn't guess the plot twist. The action scenes are adequately acrobatic, the characters interesting, and the acting fine. As mentioned, PoP has some nice touches. I especially liked the historical references, the knife fight, and the shrew-taming dialogue.
Politics/message:
This movie could have been one of those naive essays on the futility of war (very necessary actually, if you want an empire). It is not, thankfully. It deals with sacrifice, bravery, defeating treachery- the usual.
Political animals might notice that the Ostrich racers resemble a colony of tax-averse Tea-partiers. Lefty conspiracy theorists might associate the hunt for illegal weapons with president Bush.
There's nothing here to offend my Bourgeois sensibility. Dastan makes Tamina an honest woman by marrying her.
), 07:58:26 pm, 431 words PermalinkCategories: Now playing at a theater near you :: Leave a comment »
05/25/10
It was a very classy ending, with the predator fade, and sets up the forthcoming film very nicely.
The last few episodes were very good indeed, amongst the best 24 hours. I didn't particularly like when Jack Bauer spoke into the camera to decry dishonest statescraft. Venturing into political philosophy is out of character for the action-oriented Jack.
The president's last (15) minute honesty rivals Jack's taking out of a helicopter with a handgun in one of the previous days for sheer unbelievability.
This season did feature the best gunplay of the entire series. Jack coming out in full body armor, reminiscent of the North Hollywood Shootout, was thrilling, as was the battle with the Islamic terrorists in a warehouse complex earlier in the day.
A fine way to end the series.
05/23/10
Overall, excellent. I don't think anybody could have hoped for more and putting a bow on this irregular, beastly package of a show was an artistic accomplishment in itself. Did it answer questions? Did everything make sense after all?
I don't know. I'm not sure the writers know. Everybody's dead, and they're happy because they're together. That explains...I don't know. I simply don't know.
Emotionally, however, the Lost finale was very satisfying. More than any other episode, the finale cements the central theme of Lost as being Love. Every significant character loved a deep, spiritual love. If you notice, none of the drama in the show had to do with people on the island "hooking up" or cheating on each other. The characters sincerely, nobly, sacrificially loved- their mates (and each pair was capable of mating- some were even married) and one another.
The mildest of surprises came when Sawyer ended up with Juliet. It could have been "Freckles." Kate and Jack ended up loving the Lost society in general, each giving up romance for the good of the group.
The music was sensational.
Thankfully, no politics.
The ecumenical room with all of the religious symbols together was necessary, I suppose, in this global market. The writers didn't display an atom symbol which would have been illogical considering the ending. The writers also had the good taste to leave the ecumenicism in the room, as placing them on the altar would have been a sacrilege. Jesus' image made an appearance.
The last scene follows what those who have been in near-death experiences describe: A white light, sense of peace, reunion with deceased loved ones.
Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long, Paul Perry
The action was very good. The battle with the smoke monster Locke and the race to the plane were very exciting indeed. Wait a minute: if some of them got off the island, then why are they dead? Ha, there I go thinking again. One approaches Lost as one does a fiery romance; losing oneself in the sensibility and not worrying as much about the sense.
05/08/10
Tony Stark is a play/bad-boy billionaire industrialist whose powerful invention, a battle suit, is coveted and eventually copied by his enemies. Tony Stark must battle the Iron Man copies to save the city.
Hey! Wait a minute. Isn't that the plot of the first Iron Man? Yes, except IM1 has the best superhero origin yet depicted on screen and this one doesn't.
What's going on here?:
Tony's father hurt some Russian's feelings and the Russian's son, Ivan Vanko, constructs a fighting suit to punish the sins of the father.
(Does anybody else think it strange that two people on earth know how to build the ultimate weapon, powered by a limitless, pollution-free power source in a cave using only spare parts and a blow torch?)
Although everybody knows that Stark is Iron Man and Stark is powerless without his suit, Vanko fails to kill Stark and the authorities imprison Vanko.
(Young supervillains take note: always choose efficiency over theatrics when rubbing out your arch-rival)
Stark's slimy competitor, Justin Hammer, busts Vanko out of prison so that Vanko can help him build a super suit. Tony's military friend, "Rodie" Rhodes, steals the suit for the government because some busybody senator is uncomfortable with the most powerful weapon on earth in private hands (makes the whole "assault rifle" debate pretty silly, doesn't it?). Stark fights the "boss" at the end with the help of a sexy paramilitary chick.
The main problem with IM2 is that each plot thread above is presented and resolved without any dramatic exposition in-between. Heart problem: No problem. What is SHIELD's role in the movie? The romance conflicts are perfunctory and predictable. Vanko could have been an interesting villain, properly developed. Hammer is a stock corporate creep. The friendship between Stark and Rhodes is just there. Stark's relationship with his father takes place within a film reel. Stark's battle with the government starts off with a nice Senate hearing scene and then nothing until the end.
Whereas Robert Downey's performance in IM is only one of that movie's many good elements, his effort in IM2 is one of IM2's few saving graces. Perhaps because Downey's personality has to carry the film, his acting seems more strained this time around.
The other grace? I think men will appreciate seeing a new (back) side of Scarlett Johansson.
Which isn't to say that IM2 is bad. It colors within the lines. That is, it doesn't try to be edgy or weird.
Special effects are spectacular (yawn).
Politics/Message:
Something was made of Tony Stark's Libertarian-ish refusal to give the government the suit. Again, nothing comes of it. Tony Stark isn't happy with bedding dozens of outstanding women. He wants to have a meaningful relationship with Pepper Potts, I guess. That's as close as Hollywood comes to traditional these days.
In an act four times more courageous than taking on an army of robot droids, the apparently non-nutty Downey praises the Boy Scouts, to the shrieks of his Hollywood pals, no doubt, who would equate this particular act of charity with donating to the Hitler Youth in 1943.
), 08:22:13 am, 523 words PermalinkCategories: Now playing at a theater near you, Art :: 1 comment »
XML Feeds
