The Social Performance

You know that feeling you get when a story just gets flipped upside down on you? Maybe a key member of the supporting cast becomes the villain? And it throws you for a loop? That was my feeling after going on the internet to read more about the film The Social Network. Apologies in advance if you haven't seen the film. Perhaps you could bookmark this entry & just come back to it after you've gotten a chance to watch it.

As a stand-alone movie, The Social Network is very, very good. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin, who has earned critical acclaim (and, less exciting, but also my own personal admiration) for previous works like A Few Good Men, The American President, and The West Wing, and he won an Academy Award last night for his work. The drama develops and climaxes in a such a way that captures & holds your attention, the dialogue is snippy in a pleasing way, and there's even a story within a story that leaves those who appreciate depth satisfied.

Just a Zuck and his Laptop

Which leaves me all the more curious now about the product in general. Because if the product of a master craftsman showcases so many of his fingerprints, is that product more of a reflection of its subject or of its creator?

As I said earlier, the excellence of the movie itself drove me to learn more. And what I learned changed my perspective on the movie as a chronicle of real events. For one thing, Sorkin's manuscript wasn't original material. It was inspired by & based upon the book written by Ben Mezrich called The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal. Mezrich's main source for his book? Eduardo Saverin: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's former best friend & the guy who funded the first $18,000 that allowed Facebook to launch all the way back in 2004. Ben Mezrich also wrote Bringing Down the House, a book about Asian-American kids from MIT that won hundreds of thousands of dollars playing Blackjack. You may be familiar with that story as well if you've seen the movie "21." Only they casted the film mainly with Caucasian actors and, according to Jeff Ma, sexed/partied up the story. Kinda like what Zuckerberg says happened in Mezrich's book about him.

To make a long story short, The Social Network isn't what it appears to be. What it is at it's heart is an act of cold-blooded revenge by a jilted former best friend. The motive that brought the story to prominence was as dark-hearted as Harvey Updyke's scheme to poison a cluster of trees at Toomer's Corner in Auburn, AL. His aim was to one-up himself in the eyes of the world in the same way that Justin Timberlake did to Britney Spears with "Cry Me a River." This is the grouping that The Social Network belongs in: with a legacy of having carried out revenge in a devastating & public way.

But back to Sorkin. Because even if his manuscript is slanted by his interesting observation of a social network being developed by a socially-awkward creator, his observations are still smart & interesting. Take his comments at the end of his interview on The Colbert Report, starting around the 5:45 mark:

"Social networking is to socializing as reality television is to reality."

I was one of those gasping at how profound I considered the statement. (g) Because it is a performance. You have full control to edit what you project to the world. And so does everyone else. Meaning that what you see on someone's profile page or Twitter feed is only what they want you to see. So that we all have the ability to shape our "virtual realities," or the story about ourselves that we project to the world outside ourselves. And we can shape that in a way that flatters ourselves, boosts our pride, or any number of other selfish motives. Kind of like how Aaron Sorkin & Ben Mezrich shaped their respective stories to make them more engaging for the silver screen and the hardback.

Which makes me wonder about the following questions. I don't have firm answers yet, and if anyone wants to begin a dialogue, I think it'd be a fruitful conversation to have. Tell me what you think about the following...

- How can we do social networking in a way that doesn't serve our own conceit?

- How can we do social networking in a way that doesn't make us anti-social?

...and finally...

- How can we do social networking in a way that reflects the story of God & brings more glory to Him?

REVIEW: Traitor

Just Watched:
Traitor

My Rating:
5 Stars



Every once in a while, there's a really good movie that receives almost no hype but deserves all the hype being given to a film like "Revolutionary Road" (seriously! "Thank you for getting naked again, Kate Winslet! Please take all of these awards..."). "Traitor" is that film.

This is one of those flicks that makes you think while also providing a high amount of entertainment. Mmmmmm, my favorite! The film explores the depths of loyalty, faith & religion, and the geo-political realities of terrorism all while taking you on a thrill ride. If I were to compare it to other films -- hopefully without giving too much away -- I would say that it is "The Departed" meets "Spy Game" & "The Siege" (all of which are also excellent movies, BTW)

There are several twists & turns along the way. Enough to keep you guessing until the very end. And it was one of the most brilliant & fulfilling movie endings that I'd seen in quite a while.

Awesome FBI Guy

I thought that the casting was well done. It heightened the sense of believability of the film. Everybody already knows how awesome Don Cheadle & Neal McDonough are. I was especially drawn to the character played by Guy Pearce (wearing the FBI vest in the picture). HE was awesome. And every little character at every location -- from Washington D.C. to Marseilles, France -- fulfilled important details that just raised the level of believability of the film, allowing you to suspend disbelief & become absorbed in the story.

Another element of the movie that impressed me was their treatment of religion & faith. The makers of this film did not take the hackneyed road of making clowns out of believers. Rather, they showed both sides of the faith & religion coin. On one side, you have sincere devotees of faith who let it shape & guide their life. On the other side, you have manipulative power-mongers who would use people of faith to accomplish their own selfish ends. The film portrayed these realities in stereo as they were emphasized in a major way throughout the story.

Great film all the way around. I couldn't really find any flaws. Five stars.

REVIEW: Ben Stein's "Expelled"

Just Watched:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

My Rating:
4½ Stars


I'm just stunned.

Ben Stein has put together an excellent documentary about the eclipse of academic freedom in America, especially with regard to the issue of the origin of species. With engaging interviews & startling facts, Stein goes on a journey to show how scientists who simply acknowledge (not even *subscribe* to the theory -- just ACKNOWLEDGE) the viability of the intelligent design theory are becoming victims of a systematic effort to supress alternative perspetives to Darwinian Evolutionism. With a skillful weaving of current events & images of totalitarian regimes past, Ben Stein makes a strong case that the supression of ideas is a barrier to scientific freedom as the Berlin Wall was a barrier to personal German liberty for many years. He also takes time to show the fruits of the evolutionary theory of origins by connecting the thinking with Nazi Eugenics programs.

It's just an excellent documentary. I'm amazed at the awful reviews Stein's documentary received. They simply serve as further evidence of the existence of a kind of conspiratorial cabal for the mainstream worldview of the future. And Ben Stein just furthers my deep aversion for public figures of anti-religion such as Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins.

What "Expelled" further does for me is highlight a troubling trend in 21st century culture: unknowable truth resulting from the reign of bias. What do I mean? Personally, I am unnervingly frustrated that I have no idea what to think about the idea of global warming. If you think global warming exists, then you must be a Democrat; and if you think global warming is a farce, then you must be a Republican. Each political party has their own set of scientists & "scientific" conclusions. How can a person even form an objective opinion?

As a moderate thinker, I have a difficult time with the veneration of the subjective. I listen to right-leaning people wring their hands over ACORN & people who would manipulate our political system by saturating the vote with illegal votes. And then I listen to left-leaning people wring their hands over voter suppression or the idea that electronic voting is not trustworthy -- people in positions of high influence who would manipulate our political system by fixing the numbers. And you know what -- each side is ONLY concerned with the pety notion that the other side will gain an unfair advantage! What I want to know is this: WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE OVER THE PURITY OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM?!? It's nowhere to be found! No one cares, because each side only cares for itself.

This development of a highly-polarized culture is intellectually dishonest. And that is at the heart of Ben Stein's documentary: the idea that people place their worldview before science, or objective investigation. Such as happened with the poor kids involved in the Duke lacrosse rape case -- "well, they fit profile, so let's book 'em & get it over with." Placing your worldview ahead of your investigative pursuit leaves you living in a fantasy world of your own construct -- it's not reality. And it's frustrating to people like me, especially if (like in the issue that this documentary explores) you're not even allowed to ask questions from an alternative perspective.

Well, I got lost in my own diatribe there. But you should see this documentary. And then you should go sign the Academic Freedom Petition as Ben Stein urges people to in the extra's on the DVD. "Liberty & justice for all" -- that would be a nice direction for America I think...

REVIEW: The Dark Knight

Just Watched:
The Dark Knight

My Rating:
5 Stars

(CONTAINS NO PLOT SPOILERS)

My sister and I trekked on over to the theater 30 minutes early this morning to watch the latest installment in the new Batman series in an empty theater.

Yeah, that's right. I watched the Dark Knight with literally 4 other folks in the theater. We came for the 10:00 AM matinee show. And since I didn't know what to expect crowd-wise, we showed up over a half hour early. Turned out there wasn't a rush. I have no idea why not. Given the rating, it's pretty obvious that I thought this movie was a grand slam.

I just love how Nolan's vision of Batman brings a greater sense of realism to a world of fantasy. In "Batman Begins," it is realistically explained to us how & why a billionaire orphan decided to create a persona in which he dresses up in a bat suit and fights crime. Unlike Superman or Spiderman, you come to believe that Batman could actually exist. "The Dark Knight" furthers this realism, as Bruce Wayne is beginning to fatigue in his quest of turning fear onto those who prey upon the fearful. And in the midst of the realism, real life issues can be examined in morality play fashion with greater credibility & more dynamism. The implications of the Dark Knight could be unpacked and applied to America's War on Terror, or the drug war, or fighting crime in general. In that sense, the latest Batman movie could be considered didactic. That made it an enriching experience for me.

An Amused Terrorist

Heath Ledger's death is even more heart-breaking to me now. He stole this show. Much like Captain Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean" or Doc Holiday in "Tombstone," Ledger's portrayal of The Joker dominated every scene that he was in. His performance was that good.

I'm not going to make a stake in the "Ledger vs. Nicholson" debate, but I will say this... Nicholson's Joker was more of a "King of Kings" type of Mob Boss -- the one who was crazier & willing to go to greater lengths than the other bosses, but he was still just a mob boss. Ledger's Joker, however, is different. Ledger's Joker is a terrorist. He is a sadist in that he delights in inflicting pain. But, as an odd twist, he is even more a masochist in that he seemingly takes more delight in receiving pain. He loves to mock the idea of civilization itself, so his terrorist activities are aimed at disrupting order & perceptions of security.

The senses of humor are different, too. Nicholson's Joker seemed to try to win you over -- it was as if deep down he wanted you to like him in his own twisted way. Ledger's Joker is different. He doesn't want to be liked; he wants to be feared. And his sense of humor reminds me very much of Andy Kaufman's. When you watched Kaufman perform, sometimes you got the impression that his jokes were only for himself: that his elaborate acts were designed to amuse Andy primarily, and maybe the audience indirectly. That's what the Joker's humor is like in "The Dark Knight."

I don't understand why Heath Ledger wouldn't be up for an Oscar nomination. His performance is just so good.

The rest of the film is so outstanding, as well. The musical score is inspiring & makes your hair stand up. The cinematography is eye-catching, and each scene is full. Although, having tripped to Chicago recently, it is a little difficult to not see Chicago (where TDK was filmed) and imagine Gotham City -- so much of Chicago is recognizable. If I had one other complaint, it would be that Maggie Gyllenhaal just didn't fit in the role of Rachel Dawes; the disconnect from her to Katie Holmes is distracting. Nevertheless, I'm willing to overlook these minor defects and enjoy how great this show was.

I don't want this series to end. I want Nolan & Bale to keep making more and more Batman movies. The two that they have made have been pitch perfect, and I don't think I can get enough. 5 Stars.

My 5-Star Rated Films

This is my list of films that I would call "elite." I wouldn't call any of them perfect or flawless. But this is just the elite. So when I think a movie is 5 stars (like the one I just rated this morning), this is the company I think the film belongs in.

In fact, you could call this my "Philip's Film Hall of Fame." Because not everyone in the Hall of Fame is equal: there's no way that Bruce Sutter was on the same level as Babe Ruth. There is obviously an elite among the elite. But, today, I just list the elite to give an idea of what I think an excellent movie is. It's one of those movies that when someone calls it by name, my eyes light up & I go, "YEAH..."

BTW, this list does not include documentaries, mini series, or TV shows. Films only.

3:10 to Yuma
Batman Begins
A Beautiful Mind
Blood Diamond
The Bourne Identity
Braveheart
Cinderella Man
Clear and Present Danger
Dead Poets Society
The Departed
Dumb and Dumber
Evan Almighty
Field of Dreams
The Five People You Meet in Heaven
Forrest Gump
French Kiss
The Ghost and the Darkness
Gladiator
Good Morning, Vietnam
The Goonies
The Green Mile
Jeremiah Johnson
Legends of the Fall
Life is Beautiful
Lord of the Rings: Two Towers
Major League
The Matrix
Meet the Parents
The Negotiator
Ocean's Eleven
Office Space
Old School
Patriot Games
Pay It Forward
The Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
Ray
Red Dragon
Remember the Titans
Saving Private Ryan
Seven
The Shawshank Redemption
The Siege
Spy Game
Star Wars IV, V, and VI
Stranger Than Fiction
Swingers
Thirteen Days
Tombstone
Top Gun
Training Day
Willow
You've Got Mail

REVIEW: Stranger Than Fiction

Just Watched:
Stranger Than Fiction

My Rating:
5 Stars



You know, I don't suppose you really know whenever you're going to taste something truly marvelous for the first time: whether it be some new cuisine you've never tried, a book you'd never read, or a movie you've never seen. Sometimes those marvelous tastes have hype behind it; but usually the best, most marvelous tastes are the hidden gems that you discover almost by accident. And so it was the latter with this film.

Given the truths I just highlighted, I struggle with the idea of endorsing this film. Because I know that my enjoyment was so satisfying that my praise will be so effusive to the point that it might spoil the experience for those of you who haven't seen it yet. But I can't help it. I enjoyed it so much.

I defer to Wikipedia for a brief story introduction:

Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is a dull auditor for the Internal Revenue Service who is awakened alone each morning by his wristwatch. He is a compulsive counter and an obsessive time-saver. One day, Harold begins to hear the voice of a woman who is omnisciently narrating his life.

Harold's relationships are almost entirely with numbers, and with his watch that helps him keep track of time (which, to him, is just a number). Until, upon beginning to hear the woman's narrative voice, he is sent upon a journey of existential discovery that ultimately enriches his life.

Because one of the main characters of the film is a writer, it gives the actual screenwriter a lot of liberties to play with. For one, the movie makes you toy with the idea back & forth of whether Harold Crick will end up living or will be forced to die. It is a fun trip, and unlike another movie I saw the other day, the ending was supremely satisfying in tidily tying up all of the loose ends.

(BTW, the other movie: No Country For Old Men. The ending ruins the whole experience. It was worse than The Sopranos. Seriously, it was that bad.)

There's really nothing to criticize with this film. The writing is dazzling. The acting is pitch perfect from every player. And the pacing is just right. There is a little pre-marital funny business that I obviously think could have been scripted in a more innocent way. But it also wasn't overwhelming.

I fear saying any more. I've said what I hope will wet your appetite. Get your wife to add it to the Netflix or Blockbuster queue. And I think you'll be glad you spent part of an evening watching this one. Five Stars.

REVIEW: In the Valley of Elah

Just Watched:
In the Valley of Elah

My Rating:
4 Stars


All the horror & grit of war wrapped up in a tidy little 121-minute flicker show.

Tommy Lee Jones portrays a former Military Police Investigator whose son has returned home from Iraq and gone AWOL. His son is found murdered in a brutal fashion, and the rest of the movie is spent in a hunt for justice and a realization of the utter ugliness that war spawns.

The film carries a strong anti-Iraq War sentiment, especially toward the end of the film, and most blatantly in the final scene. Also, there was too much unnecessary frontal nudity: it was profuse, gratuitous, and needless. Subtlety of any kind went out the window in the making of this film: it's in your face & raw.

I'm really not happy about the amount of nipples I've seen in the last two movies I've reviewed. And, for the record, I didn't even see all of them because I diverted my eyes elsewhere during many of those scenes.

The acting was superb. Al Gore's former college room-mate (that's Tommy Lee Jones, if you didn't already know) was the star, of course. He was absolutely deserving of his Academy Award Nomination in this role. You feel all the emotions of the film (from anxiety to sorrow to helplessness to rage to remorse right along with TLJ. I think that's the mark of a great actor -- to be able to transmit an emotion from his portrayal to the viewer's heart. The other portrayal that captured my attention was a particular Susan Sarandon scene -- your heart just breaks with her's. All the other players do their jobs well, too.



I wish I could write more, but it would either be anti-war sentiment, anti-"anti-war" sentiment, or plot points that would give away a lot of the film. A well-told story, but some points (anti-Iraq War & all the boobs) were too overt for me find this a completely fulfilling experience. Four stars.

REVIEW: American Gangster

Just Watched:
American Gangster

My Rating:
3½ Stars


This film is based on the true story of Frank Lucas' heroin distribution organization in New York City from 1969 until the mid-1970's. Lucas, played by Denzel Washington, is a Johnny Come Lately drug lord who becomes THE player in the mob business. Detective Richie Roberts, played by Russell Crowe, is a cop with integrity who is tasked with taking down the big fish drug dealers. To actually do this job, Roberts puts together an investigative team of other trustworthy cops (very reminiscent of Elliot Ness & his Untouchables). The drama happens when both Lucas & Roberts receive pressure from the established oligarchical power in their respective businesses (Lucas from Italian mob bosses; Roberts from dirty cops in on the take) to quit messing with the status quo.

Denzel always walks tall

My main draw to this film was the acting. This part is right in Denzel's wheelhouse, and he pretty much delivers. When it comes to playing the thoughtful, strong presence who takes control in every scene, Denzel does it every time. He's typecast in that sense -- I'm not sure if I could see him portraying weakness on screen. Russell Crowe can do both, though. Still, despite how much I like Crowe, he was just sort of there. He didn't do a bad job, but he didn't really knock his role out of the park. I can't help but think that this role wasn't really for him. I think it would have been more captivating if, and I'd have rather seen, a more diminutive man take Crowe's role: say, Ed Norton or Sean Penn. Not Mark Wahlberg, though. Would have to be an actor that conveyed depth.

A warning: if you can't handle National Geographic-style nudity, then I would recommend completely steering clear from this film.

Not sure there's a unique message to this film. "Pride goeth before the fall," maybe. "The good guys always win" ... something like that perhaps. It's really just a good story told pretty well. There were a few odd tangents in the movie, and it took way too long to get to the meat & potatoes. This one could have been better. 3½ stars.

REVIEW: Shrek the Third

Just Watched:
Shrek the Third

My Rating:
3 Stars


As a memorable video game character once quipped: "Zee Magic? She is gone!" The Shrek franchise began with a fantastic piece of work. I think that it all went wrong when the decision-makers decided to make a franchise out of one blockbuster effort. This is one more example of the classic case where movie executives forced the writers & creators to pump out two more movies, when all those writes & creators ever really wanted to do was the first film. And when that happens, it shows in the quality of the final two movies of the trilogy (e.g. The Matrix).

Overall, Shrek the Third was underwhelming. The plot was about as ordinary and unexciting as an episode of Law & Order. The writing didn't come close to recapturing the zany humor of the first film. And they tried. There are a couple scenes with some spark. But ultimately, the film falls short.

"We're Doing a THIRD film?"

My main complaint, however, is the volume of characters. There are too many! Remember in the first film when there are a handful of characters that we get to know & begin to laugh at? There are too many central characters in this film to whom they had to give "face time". Ultimately, it is subtraction by addition.

One thing I'll give them: the picture is PHEnomenal. Especially in HD. Even though the other elements of the film stunk, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I was mesmerized by the power of High Definition.

"The Third" sticks with it's series-long theme of being a the anti-fairy tale. In this episode, instead of waiting to be rescued, the princesses come to the rescue. Prince Charming is the sinister antagonist instead of being the courageous hero. The Ogre, instead of being the evil and frightening monster, is the whimsical and like-able hero. And, in the end, "fighting for the cause" is the WRONG thing to do. While there is some charm in such an upside-down story, the fact that it comes out of Hollywood in our current national milieu disturbs me somewhat. It's as if they are planting subliminal messages like, "Hey kids, the 'good guys' in Washington are really bad, the 'bad guys' that they vilify are really good, and never, ever fight for the right thing." Ultimately, it feels like the creators of the film delivered a liberal message in an under-handed & manipulative way. And, to me, that's slimy.

Still, it was fun to see the cast of Shrek in one more film. And it wasn't ALL bad. Kids will no doubt love it. The film-makers just couldn't recapture the magic of the original. 3 stars, out of five.

REVIEW: 3:10 to Yuma

Just Watched:
3:10 to Yuma

My Rating:
5 Stars


The very best Western-style movies are didactic. That is, in the process of telling a gripping story in a desert setting where injustice reigns, Westerns impart a moral precept of some kind. Whether it is teaching a profound lesson about life or revealing some important truth about human nature, the very best Westerns instruct as much as they entertain.

Tombstone framed Wyatt Earp's life (especially the episodes at the OK Corral & on his Vendetta Ride) in Biblical terms of a reckoning. Earp was likened unto "the rider on a pale horse" of Revelation 6:8, which is quoted throughout key moments of the film. Unforgiven took us on a journey with a reformed cold-blooded killer named William Munny. He is pushed. And pushed. And pushed. And when Munny reaches a breaking point, we get to discover how much evil a decent man will suffer before rekindling his former violent ways to suppress an insufferable evil.

3:10 to Yuma continues this tradition of great contemporary Hollywood Westerns. The character development is sensational. Christian Bale plays a down-on-his-luck rancher who has hit rock bottom: he is crippled, he's dirt poor, he's about to lose his land, his boys don't look up to him, and his wife doesn't respect him. How could a man in such dire straits regain his dignity? Russell Crowe plays a renowned Western bandit & gang leader who is on top of the mountain in terms of success at his profession. And, as such, he is a bit of a "bored king." Could even a shred of redeeming goodness be found in the heart of such a rotten, villainous figure? These questions, and more, are asked & answered along the captivating journey that is this film.

The acting is superb. Bale & Crowe are two of the finest actors in Hollywood right now, and this film will grow in stature as it is remembered as having been filmed in the prime of their careers. Bale has the privilege of delivering the most memorable lines of the film, and he delivers them perfectly. He was not nominated for a Golden Globe, and I will be highly disappointed if he is not announced as a nominee for an Academy Award when those Oscar nominations are released Tuesday morning. Russell Crowe simply has the greatest range of any Hollywood actor alive today. And the supporting cast comes through as well. I especially enjoyed the acting of Dallas Roberts. He carries a forceful presence on screen, and I hope to see more of him in future films.

Christian Bale delivers

Finally, truly great films deliver memorable lines that stick with you. Tom Hanks' line about facing God at Judgment Day in The Green Mile comes to mind. Kevin Costner's character asking his father if he wanted to "have a catch" in Field of Dreams. In The Shawshank Redemption, it's Andy Durfresne telling Red, "It's a simple matter, really: Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'." Even the much parodied "You had me at 'Hello'" line from Jerry Maguire. As I alluded earlier, Christian Bale's character gets to deliver a line like that toward the end of the film to his son. It's a line that speaks volumes about the courage and virtue of a man. And, as a man, it causes me to call into question if I am made of the same kind of stuff that made that man great in that moment. When all the superficial reasons for doing the right thing are stripped away, would you still make the right choice? Even when it didn't have to be done? Even when you have a laundry list of reasons not to -- including saving your own neck? Especially when "nobody else would?"

All the way around, this movie gets it right. Regular readers of my reviews are aware that I don't hand these out lightly. But I am giving this movie 5 stars, out of five. Buy it. Watch it. Re-watch it. Cherish it. Because Hollywood doesn't make movies like this very often.

REVIEW: Justice? Or Just Us?

Just Watched:
The Kingdom

My Rating:
3½ Stars

Screen Writer Matthew Michael Carnahan is beginning to make a name for himself in Hollywood for his Islamo-Political Thriller Screenplays. And this will always have been his breakthrough work. His 2nd, "Lions for Lambs," was released just over two months ago.

The plot of this movie follows a team of FBI investigators who seek to find the assassins behind the shooting & bombing of Americans in a western compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The story is fiction, but according to Wikipedia, "it is inspired by bombings at the Riyadh compound on May 12, 2003 and the Khobar housing complex on June 26, 1996 in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia." I don't quite remember the '03 incident, but I clearly remember the '96 incident which happened soon after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the pictures in the film are quite reminiscent of that specific event.

I found the film very entertaining, and I as well found the ideological journey quite compelling. The carnage & victimization of innocent Americans immediately draws you in. And without revealing too much, there's a moment where your sympathy turns intensely personal. You begin to want justice just as much as the characters in the film want it. Along the way, the film educates the audience about some of the complexities involved in achieving such justice in this foreign land. And by the end of the film, you are left to wonder if justice for such deeds is even possible.

There's nothing funny about this. If you watch this film get ready to meet this disaster face to face.

The acting wasn't anything to write home about particularly. The bright spot was Jamie Foxx, who is beginning to rival Denzel as a dominating African-American screen presence. The writers and producers of this film wrote Jen Garner's role to be rather simplistic. In essence, she represents the heart & empathy of humanity in a war-torn setting. Frankly, she's basically the one who has permission to cry. Chris Cooper is the ornery old technician with just enough soul to make you like him. And Jason Bateman is the token smart aleck designed to (1) inject comic relief into the film when we need it and (2) to ratchet up the tension whenever we see him begin to get serious. Jeremy Piven plays his now type-cast fast-talking schmoozer. And Tim McGraw attempts to apparently reprise his white trash role from "Friday Night Lights" (it's really just kind of a bizarre & confusing cameo that utterly distracts from the subject that was at hand at that point in the film). So, basically, other than Foxx, either the acting itself stunk or the writers didn't really care to spend time developing the characters. And to me, characters are the engine that drive the film: it's all about placing REAL humanity in critical situations. These characters weren't real; they were clearly fabricated. Significant docking of points for that in my book.

As for the rest of the production of this film... I can't put my finger on it, but this movie just had a feel of having dumbed down complex issues for an American palate. In the middle of a political & investigative thriller, an action movie breaks out. It's a little bit shoot-'em-up western, a little bit counter-terrorist hostage rescue, and a little bit "Clear And Present Danger" Ambush Scene rip off. The action wasn't woven into the storyline with total seamlessness. In other words, I felt reminded that I was watching a Hollywood creation.

On to themes. For me, one of the major testaments of the film is the heroism of the local nationals who serve their country and live to fight for the cause of freedom & justice for all in the face of unspeakable tyrannical hate. I'm awe of their level of determination. They deserve the highest honors that our world affords. They are true heroes.

And as for the major theme, there is a common line spoken by two different actors at the very end of the film that is intended to speak volumes. Can't tell you what it is, but it goes back to that whole idea of justice. Is there justice? That is, in this life? Or is "justice" really revenge woven into a fairy tale that's spun in order to pacify the masses? That question the central focus of the film, and it's delivered quite well. I wasn't offended as if it was an underhanded attempt to take a slap at the right-wingers in Washington. Although I could understand why some conservatives might receive it that way. If you ask me, though, I would probably find such a reaction to be hyper-sensitive to partisan politics.

All in all, an enjoyable experience. But I'd say Carnahan has a way's to go before he fancies himself as Tom Clancy. 3½ Stars.

REVIEW: The Bourne Redundancy

Just Watched:
The Bourne Ultimatum

My Rating:
4 Stars

This one was very good.

Ultimatum returns to the familiar feel of Identity in this film. From now on, when you look up "thrill-ride" in the dictionary, there will be a scaled down picture of the movie poster for this film (just like the one above) next to the definition. Most good action movies take you for a ride and keep you in a constant state of suspense because you don't know what's going to happen right around the corner. The poor movies don't do this: the movement is plodding, the plots are set-up cheaply & are wholly predictable, and the entire experience is just stale. Not so here. Remember how fun Identity was the first time when you could hardly remember where you had just been, could barely figure out where you were at the time, and had no idea where you were going??.... but you couldn't wait to get there! This movie does that, too. If it is an experience you seek, this is your film.

Now, I'm about to get really critical. I may be splitting hairs here, but that is what separates the magnificent works of art from the "very good" films.

Bourne, Bourne -- he's our man! Why don't we send him to Afghanistan!

The first thing that holds me back from letting loose the coveted "iii 5-star rating" is the same thing that held back Identity: QUESTIONS. We are left with more questions than answers. Hopefully without giving too much away... why is Julia Stiles' character so drawn to Bourne's? Why was Bourne so willing to forget his former identity in order that he might be conditioned to become Jason Bourne? Could Jason Bourne kill both James Bond & Jack Bauer? The artist, I'm sure, would say that this is merely true to life: our's is an existence that asks many questions & answers few of them. Poppycock, I say! Art imitates culture, sure, but I also look to art to make a point, portray a view, answer a question. Supremacy didn't do this. Minus ½ a star.

Another redundant feature of this movie was our final view of the character of Jason Bourne as a tragic figure who is asked to sacrifice too much for the cause. I really didn't enjoy this theme the first time I saw Matt Damon portray it in The Good Shepherd. I really didn't care to see him emphasize the point again. Apparently our culture is supposed to be one where no one gives more than society's arbitrary standard of self-sacrifice allows. (As an aside, perhaps the scandal of the cross in contemporary culture is the very simple notion of self-sacrifice. I'll be meditating on this, & I'll probably be preaching on it soon, as well).

Finally, and once again from the Redundant Department of Redundancy, the architects of this film reach back to the trusty & reliable first in the trilogy for a theme: identity. In a deleted scene, before a Senate committee in a hearing, the director of the CIA explains the primacy of ethics in espionage relative to the USA keeping its identity as a noble nation. In the film, Jason Bourne relentlessly chases clues toward the end of discovering his identity. Other agents furiously chase other clues toward the end of discovering exactly what the CIA really is at the tip of the sword. The entire trilogy is somewhat of a morality play about how it is what you do in life that defines you. Wait a minute! That was Batman Begins! Minus another ½ a star for lack of imagination & theme infringement.

Matt Damon even joked about the repetitive nature of this film franchise, joking as a guest on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" that the fourth movie would have to be named "The Bourne Redundancy." Some clever people have already filmed & released the trailer for the fourth Bourne film.

Four stars. Not great, but very good. It is certainly a must-see.

He Shoots, He Scorcese's!

Just Watched:
The Departed

My Rating:
4½ Stars

After The Departed racked up at the Oscars this past Sunday night (winning for "Best Picture" & "Best Director"), I decided I needed to view this movie. I'm so glad I did.

A fore-warning. The language used in the film is pretty filthy. If you don't have a stomach for that, steer clear. But what struck me even worse was the violence. Not a small amount of blood-splattering scenes. This is a guy who found Passion of the Christ too be a little too much for me on a silver screen. Departed didn't reach that level, but it's not a long way off. But, when you're talking about a mob movie, you expect not a little of both of these.

As I just stated, the plot revolves around the American/Irish Mob in Boston, Mass. The mob boss is played by Jack Nicholson. Superb job. Scorcese originally wanted DeNiro to play this role, but it wouldn't have been the same. DeNiro always appears more reserved & calculated in his roles. Nicholson brings that "Here's Johnny!" & Joker vibe that scares the mess out of you. And that's exactly what his role was meant to do: scare the mess out of you. Nicholson at his best.

DiCaprio Delivers

And I am forced to admit that this film marks, at least for me, the emergence of one of the new great actors of our generation. I'll have to admit that I had not understood the buzz until now. All I'd seen of this "pretty boy" was his work in Titanic & Catch Me If You Can, and he seemed like one of those sell-out guys. You know: one of those kinds of actors with the pretty face who attracts the ladies & plays some kind of unrealistic, sweater-wearing dream boy. Plus, this was his third film with Scorcese, and he had already also done a film with Spielberg. "What a spoiled brat," I thought. Even his name sounded fake. Nevertheless, Leonardo DiCaprio truly is emerging as a "Must-See" marquee name. Much like Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, & Tom-Cruise-used-to-be, I see the phrase "a DiCaprio movie" entering our vernacular (another guy who is sneaking his way into this realm: Christian Bale). This guy is GOOD in this movie. GOOD! He goes toe-to-toe with every other actor in this film & nails it in every scene. If this were Gymnastics, I'd give him a 10. I don't know HOW he wasn't nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor for THIS role. He was nominated instead for Blood Diamond. As much as I enjoyed him in Departed, guess which movie just got bumped to the top of my Netflix Queue? ;-D I cannot be effusive enough about how much I enjoyed DiCaprio in this movie. And I'm so surprised that that last sentence in no way sounds gay anymore.

If there is anyone who disappointed in this flick, I'd say it was Matt Damon. And it's not really Damon's fault. It's just that his character was written to be more stale & static, and in the movies I've seen him in recently he is also relatively stale & static. And he's surrounded by a group of characters in this story who are all so distinctive & well-played that it's almost like he was setup to fail in a sense. Don't get the wrong impression: he does his job right. He carries the ball & doesn't drop it. But for a guy who is closer to 40 than he is 30, I'm getting a little tired of seeing him in roles where he also plays himself in flashbacks at the age-range of 18-25. It's not that he doesn't pull it off; it's just that this is what he plays in a lot of his movies lately. Still, Damon is on par with DiCaprio: one of those guys who's emerging as the best in the business.

The guy who stole the show for me was Mark Wahlberg. Marky Mark! He gets probably 40% of the film's curse words. But he steals every scene he is in. It is a SHAM that he was not nominated for Best Supporting Actor. He was phenomenal as well.

All of the other supporting actors & actresses -- Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Mark Rolston (Bogs from Shawshank), etc. -- also delivered in their roles.

This film left me wanting more Scorcese. People of my generation don't know him as well because he really sort of peaked in the 80's, but he's apparently one of the best directors of our generation. Scorcese finally getting his Best Director Oscar was like Elway winning the Super Bowl or Earnhardt finally winning the Daytona 500. So I've added some of his movies to my Queue, like Raging Bull, Goodfellas, & Casino.

The real thematic idea that the story studies & tinkers with is that of identity. You have a mob guy as a mole in the police department. And you have a State police officer under-cover as a gang member. And both struggle with their double-lives. You can even see this theme being developed from the line that Nicholson delivers in the trailer:

When I was your age they used to say you could become cops or criminals. What I'm saying to you is this... When you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?

What is it that separates the bad guy from the good guy? Each character sells himself to his enemy so well that it's hard to remember who the bad guy is sometimes. But each character deals with self-doubt about who they really are on the inside after doing the things they have done. It's really a fun thing to watch.

The only reason this film didn't receive 5 stars by me is the ending. There's a little twist at the end that didn't need to be there. I didn't buy it, anyway. Nevertheless, I've decided to not let a strange ending spoil my enjoyment of the totality of this film experience. It was suspenseful. It was exciting. It was a great thrill ride. I loved this movie & I think you will, too.

Other films I've seen since Christmas via Netflix:

16 Blocks: 3½ Stars. I liked. You've never seen Bruce Willis like this.

Cars: 4 Stars. I don't care who you are -- that's funny right there.

The Usual Suspects: 3 stars. It was aight.

One Night with the King: 2 stars. Hollywood fouled up the ending.

Man of the Year: 1 star. God-awful film. And I love Robin Williams.

Desperado: 2 stars. Eh...

Once Upon a Time in Mexico: 2 stars. [Sigh...]

The Boondock Saints: 2 stars. Cool concept, but it doesn't deliver.

Ricky Bobby

Just Watched:
Talladega Nights:
      The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Rating: 4½ Stars


Sometimes you wonder if a movie can't possibly live up to the hype. I mean, Will Ferrell was showing up to the Oscar's, Golden Globe's, & ESPY's in his Wonderbread race suit. The ESPY's ran a special comedic "SportsCentury" bit on Ricky Bobby. Will Ferrell & John C. Reilly even went and did an hour on Larry King Live acting like their persona's (Ricky Bobby & Cal Naughton, Jr. -- "SHAKE & BAKE!") for the entire episode! There's no way the movie can live up to this kind of hype, right?

Well, Will Ferrell delivered. Enjoy it folks, because he is absolutely in his prime. It's sad to say, but as the Sports Guy pointed out in his review, comedians don't have that long of a shelf life. Jim Carey just isn't as funny as he was when he was pumping out Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber. Adam Sandler still delivers funny moments now & then, but he hasn't really delivered since Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. Well, we now have two certifiable, high-grade comedic hits from Ferrell -- Anchorman & Talladega Nights -- and even a mild hit with Elf. The guy is comedic gold right now. I hope he can keep it up.

I'm seriously considering wasting $21.99 on this hat.

The movie did have some vulgar humor. Some of it was funny, and some of it was like, "Woah! A big line was crossed here. I'm not sure I can dignify that with a laugh." And yet, it probably won't keep me from seeing it again. In fact, I'll probably be buying this movie on video. Sometime soon, I'm going to give my treatise on Christians & secular media. Look for it. Also, there's a scene in the movie where Will Ferrell & company sort of make fun with prayer -- not necessarily of prayer, if you can recognize the difference. And yet, I know that there are going to be Christians who find that scene highly offensive. Yet I found it highly humorous -- right up there with the Meet the Parents prayer ("[...] Oh Lord, three things we ask of thee: to know thee more dearly, to see thee more clearly, and to walk with thee more nearly. Amen. Amen!").

Other random thoughts:

• This is going to go down as one of the most quote-able movies of all time. Up there with Dumb & Dumber and Napolean Dynamite. It will be a cultural phenomenon for years to come.


• I really want a Ricky Bobby #26 Wonderbread hat. And, yes, I do know that it is a complete waste of $21.99. But think of the laughs I'll get EVERYWHERE whenever I wear that hat!


• Awesome soundtrack. Whether they wanted you to laugh or to get you pumped up, the music was well-placed.


• Car racing & movies just go together. It works. The sound of the engines & the cars really gets your blood pumping. Good stuff.


• The acting was PHENOMENAL. Will Ferrell really pulled off the cocky redneck (with a little embellishment, of course, for comedy's sake). John C. Reilly nailed the role of country bumpkin. And there's this excellent scene with Ferrell, Reilly, & Michael Clarke Duncan (the big black guy from The Green Mile) that had me ROLLING with laughter. Duncan didn't contribute a whole lot to the film comedy-wise, but his delivery in that scene is perfect. The kids who play Ricky Bobby's sons were good -- it's just that the younger one was funny while the older one seemed more perverse. And the guy who played Ricky Bobby's father (who was also the boss from Office Space .... "Yeahhhhhhhh ...") nailed his role. There wasn't any slacking in this film like there can be sometimes in comedies -- everyone's acting was on the mark.

All in all, you can probably tell that I enjoyed the experience. I highly recommend that you go enjoy Ricky Bobby.

Superman Disappoints

Just Watched:
Superman Returns
Rating: 2½ Stars

What is art if it isn't more than mere entertainment? This is the question I struggle with after watching this most recent installment that chronicles the superheroic feats of The Man of Steel.

From the perspective of mere amusement, Superman Returns is a fine film. There is nothing to complain about with the acting. Brandon Routh is Superman, and he is Clark Kent. The music is outstanding; there is just something about that Superman theme that really throttles your passions to an almost fever pitch. It's right up there with the themes from movies like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Back to the Future. They really couldn't go wrong there. The filmography is fantastic, especially in the scenes where Superman saves an airplane from plummeting to certain destruction. And the drama is fairly well orchestrated, though the ending could have been more fulfilling.

But what is this art of film if it is only entertainment? Does it need to be more than mere entertainment? Should it have a message?

At least one person thinks not. A User Review on IMDB from "crobarj1" ends this way:

Ultimately, I loved this film. It's a great story well told. It doesn't need to be anything else.

"It doesn't need to be anything else." What are stories if they don't tell us something about ourselves? What are stories if they don't grapple with real-life issues and address, in some fashion, the human condition? What are stories if all they do is capture & hold our attention for several hours: nothing more, nothing less?

My favorite films are my favorites because they do indeed speak a message to the world, and/or they hold kernels of truth. The Shawshank Redemption speaks about hope & persistence in the face of evil, hatred, and cynicism. Field of Dreams portrays the fractured relationship between a father & a son, and their glorious reunion, all the while admiring a grand old game. It speaks about opening your mind to see possibilities that somehow seem unreachable. Swingers speaks to the struggle & ultimate fulfillment of romantic relationships, all the while portraying a brotherhood that picks one another up when they're down. And if you've watched Dead Poet's Society and didn't catch that theme ... well ... God bless you. Carpe Diem. Seize the Day.

Good movies have themes that dominate & leave you with an important message. The installments of Spiderman grapple with Peter Parker's grandfather's words: "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility." Batman Begins spoke about a prodigal son returning to fulfill his purpose. Cinderella Man embodies a period & a culture where people had to scratch, claw, and, in Jim Braddock's case, literally fight their way out of the hole. These are the movies that have bite. They mean something. They stand for something.

What does Superman Returns stand for? Box office revenue? I'm sorry, but I'm left wanting.

Perhaps the only storyline that comes close to being the theme is the idea that Lois struggles with of whether or not the world needs a Savior. She wins a Pulitzer for writing an article about why the world does not, but by the end of the movie she is brought around to the other side of the argument. And we find her, toward the end, staring at a computer screen that is blank white except for the heading, "Why the World Needs Superman." But it feels more like side-story than a theme. It isn't woven throughout. And then there's the kind-of-creepy voiceover of fatherly wisdom from Superman's own father through different parts of the film, which is repeated in part by Superman toward the end of the film. But what is that all about? A theme is a theme, not a three points and a poem. And ultimately, this is where Superman Returns misses it. It's a harsh view, to be sure, but out of Superman I suppose I expected much more.

Superman is Americana. So perhaps it is fitting that a movie about him would have more fluff and less depth. Is that too cynical a view of America? I'm not sure. But you know, life does imitate art. Or is it the other way around? Or does this movie even qualify to be called art? Perhaps "almost-art" is more fitting. Nevertheless, this piece of almost-art left me hoping for a message that never came. And because of that, I contend that this movie did only half of what it could have accomplished.

Two and a Half stars, out of Five.

Random Baseball Thoughts

Just Watched:
The Hills Have Eyess
Rating:
2 Stars

If you've seen the commercials, you know that this movie looks FREAKY. Not just scary ... freaky. After watching, I was disappointed. Over half the deaths happen in a matter of minutes, are not drawn out, and are disturbingly brutal. You may say, "It's a horror movie, what do you expect?" But in the midst of this scene, a woman is raped, an infant is tortured, and a pregnant woman is shot in the stomach. I found it distasteful. The movie then becomes predictable, and the people I watched it with got bored & we entertained ourselves by making our own "Mystery Science Theater 3000"-like commentary.

All in all, if you want to waste $4 and 2 hours, go out & rent The Hills Have Eyes.

Here's some of my random thoughts on baseball:

• Red Sox Red Hot. After being swept by the Minnesota Twins, the Red Sox have won 7 in a row. Manny's got his swing going, the front office is having Yankee-like luck in filling the holes in the pitching rotation, and the defense is the best in the bigs (99.1% pct.). And I love their pitching youth movement with Jon Papelbon (future starter), Manny Delcarmen (bullpen), Jon Lester (starter), and Craig Hansen (future closer). And when you consider that there is also a 26 year-old World Series MVP (Josh Beckett) in the mix, and the Sox look to have some of the best young arms in the majors. Theo Epstein over-rated? I don't think so.


• Braves Not. Atlanta won tonight, gracefully snapping a 10 game losing streak. They have lost 18 of their last 21. It's sad to see this run come to an end like this. Three names are being tossed around as trade bait: John Smoltz, Andruw Jones, & Chipper Jones. The most attractive of these names is probably Smoltz, given his postseason record & that he's got the cheapest contract among these guys. Unless they get A-level pitching prospect or a proven young starter (e.g. Ervin Santana) in return, this would be a huge mistake. Smoltz has an $8 million option for 2007, which is a great deal for a pitcher of Smoltz's caliber. Andruw or Chipper would make more sense. Andruw makes 17% of Atlanta's payroll. However, there is no forseeable replacement. That's why I'd like to see the Braves move Chipper. He's aging, has a hard time staying healthy, makes just less than Andruw, and has a young backup who could produce almost as well as he does in Wilson Betemit. I'm guessing that none of the three gets moved, however, and that the Braves work to overhaul their bullpen & come back strong in '07.


• Marlins vs. Yankees payroll. An interesting matchup this weekend in the Bronx. New York puts their $210 million payroll (largest in the bigs) up against Florida's $17 million payroll (smallest in the bigs). Yanks won the opener, 6-5.


• All-Star Voting. Something needs to be done about our All-Star Voting system. Of the 8 starters on the AL team, 6 of the current voting leaders are Red Sox or Yankees. And it's close to 7 of 8, with Johnny Damon almost in the top 3 OF vote-getters. Jason Varitek is floundering as Joe Mauer leads the league in hitting, but it looks like 'Tek will start the big game. Chone Figgins has 26 steals & Ty Wigginton has 13 homeruns, but it looks like Robinson Cano and Mark Loretta will battle it out for starter. Come on, people -- variety is the spice of life.


• Ozzie-fest. Other than his frequent use of profanity, I love Ozzie Guillen. I love that he is totally anti-PC. And if anyone deserved being called a "fag," it is Jay Mariotti. Lots of folks are hating on Ozzie lately, but I wish they wouldn't. We criticize atheletes & sports personalities when they reveal too little of themselves & their feelings (e.g. A-Rod), and then we criticize them when they reveal too much (e.g. Ozzie, Curt Schilling, et. al.). I love the guys who speak their mind -- a breath of anti-PC air!


• Gammons pimping the Mobile ESPN phone. A friend of mine recently recommended that ESPN Baseball personality Peter Gammons should be Baseball's Commissioner. Often, I'd agree. But lately, my least favorite commerical on television involves Gammons. I hate how ESPN has been hawking their ESPN Mobile cell phone & service at nearly every commercial break. And now, they have Gammons pimping the product. Apparently, even he has a price.

McNamara's Fog

Just Watched: The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara

I feel like I've just woken up from a dream. I've exited an experience which was exhillarating, yet my memory of the events darkens with each passing moment. "The Fog of War" isn't so much about McNamara's eleven lessons as it is about wisdom and life. You don't find wisdom and life in an itemized set of points. The film wasn't about points; they were merely a frame around a very entertaining and enlightening documentary. He recalls some of the most important points in human history, mixing in human interest stories and entertaining anecdotes. I highly recommend.