Wall-E

Took the kiddos to Wall*E today. It is not a kid's movie and yet they loved it. My daughter announced as it was finished, "I want to see it again!" So, did I. I'm still mulling the meaning of it and pondering the imagery, which is so rich and visually stimulating, it deserves a second and third look. (Trailers here.)

Imagine Bladerunner meets E.T. meets The Sound of Music. I'm serious. The setting is a dystopian science fiction backdrop of a ruined world. The flashing neon signs felt straight out of the darkness of Bladerunner. The plucky main character, even his gravelly voice and big expressive eyes, his sympathy, his cheerful task-orientation reminded me of E.T. And the love story, for this is what the movie really is, is pure romance along the lines of The Sound of Music.

Here's the negative, and one reviewer finds it a horrible negative, but he's in the minority: The villain, superficially, is the evil corporation Buy-n-Large or BNL. I don't know if Disney-Pixar is being ironic. I mean, who, besides Disney creates better, huge, artificial, commercial environments? I can't think of one. So, this corporation took over the world, created a mess and earth ends up trashed. Actually, it ends up a literal trash heap. So, you've got the environmentalism crap too. Still, the real villains are the stupid people. Humans, or is it Americans, are dumbasses....or can be fat, lazy and stupid. The question: can humans redeem themselves?

Pixar's robots are human, some good, some evil, and the humans lost their humanity somewhere in the hundreds of years of their cruise-ship-like existence when they had to escape Earth. Earth is desolate and deserted and Wall-E is alone in the world until he receives his first visitor--Eve. And from there, things get more interesting. Saving the world, saving humanity and saving love all factor into the wee story arc.

The movie sticks with me now and I'll be contemplating the implications for a long time. There's so much more I could tell you, but I won't. Except this: Go see the movie. It's the best movie I've seen in a long, long time.

Four/four stars.

Hobbit Movie Musts

Brendan has a list of Hobbit musts. Personally, I want funny. The Hobbit is a series of silly foibles and tall tales. I want them all included.

And I agree with some of the sentiments written elsewhere: the point of the book isn't the battle at the end. The evil in this book is more insidious, less overt and really, scarier. So, while the movie has the potential to be comedic throughout and should be, the villains in the Hobbit are particularly loathsome and scarier than the villains in the Lord of the Rings.

To say that I'm excited about the possibilities......oh, man, I'm in nerd heaven.

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Empty Skull

Last night, late, after American Idol and the delight in David Cook's success, after the news, a friend, her kids and her kid's friends showed up at the door and kidnapped me. The destination? The opening show, 12:01 a.m., of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Well, I wanted to to see the movie anyway, why not stay up until 3:00 a.m. on a week night? I had more than a couple reasons, but went anyway, encouraged by the positive reviews coming out of Cannes, I decided in the spirit of teenagers everywhere, what the hell?

Speaking of teenagers and Indy nerds generally, two mega theaters were not quite sold out but they were full and it was midnight. Long lines filled with grinning people congregated. I imagine that this is what it felt like to be in Portland waiting for Barack Obama. Dude, it was an experience. A young Indiana showed up with his beautiful sidekick Marion (one presumes). The crowd clapped at the opening credits. Whoops came at exciting parts. This was a crowd that would be easy to please.

And yet....my friend who is a die-hard Indiana Jones fan came out of it feeling meh. She wasn't thrilled with the ending and didn't see it coming. I'm no prophet, but the opening set, Area 51, gave me a clue about what to expect. Just a little one.

Before I share what bugs me about the film, let me just say that the requisite one-liners, snappy dialogue and nail-biting action sequences filled the screen. The familiar John Williams score made me feel nostalgic. And Harrison Ford is old and seems to be lost in actual irony. His age is acknowledged right off the bat and then five minute later, he's beating men senseless half his age. He looks pretty believable doing it. Well, kinda believable.

And that brings me to what bugs me about the film. The overall tone was the problem. (Warning: Mild spoilers ahead. Do not read further if you want to flinch at every surprise.) The movie opens at Area 51, the Russian bad guys headed by wacky parapsychologist and Lenin lover Irina Spelkt (Cate Blanchett), want something and they mow down five innocent American soldiers at the entry check point to get it. The audience collectively flinched, but what I found disconcerting was the way the camera lingered and there was no outrage or sense of wrongness about this event. Those deaths don't get avenged. It's irritating as hell. Indy is in one of the trucks, he's there. One pithy line of vengeance, but no. They are American soldiers. They deserve to die.

It gets worse. Indy escapes and ends up back at his college campus where McCarthyism has taken root and poor Indy is being suspected as a traitor. The emphasis throughout is not on communism's badness but America's ridiculousness and that takes some plot-slowing turns:

Or, rather, it isn't; instead of plunging into the thick of things, we have to spend some time with Indy back on campus, where concerns about his patriotism see him dismissed from his position;

How dare anyone question anyone's patriotism? A communism protest gets run over. An all-American town gets torched. A sympathetic hero gets "swift-boated". Ten minutes in, I wanted to throw up. My friend just found it boring, which it was.

And so it went. The adventure takes Indy all over the globe again. His youthful sidekick just seemed wrongly cast. The story is choppy and there is one glaring plot hole that is still bugging the hell out of me. After you guys all see it, maybe you'll have an answer, but I've wracked my brain and have come up with a big fat nothing.

I'll be curious about how Indy fans take this movie. I give it 2.5/5 stars. Vote once you see it.

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was
	Awesome
	Horrible
	Meh
pollcode.com free polls

Prince Caspian: I'm In Love

Move over Legolas, there is another, fairer creature in these sun dappled woods and his name be Prince Caspian (actor Ben Barnes). Yesterday, I went to watch the next installment of Chronicles of Narnia. Good triumphs, evil staggers, and a war decides it. There is faith, hope, death and hubris, but those lessons were all subsumed by the foremost rule of life: Cast an incredibly hot guy with a British (was it Scottish? Irish? it was a bit brogue) accent and the movie is perfect.

Best lines of the movie:

Susan: Who are you?
Prince: I am Prince Caspian.

Yes. You. Are.


Okay, back to the movie. I got the feeling that director Adam Adamson tried to make the movie as non-spiritual as he could. He failed. The material is just too rich in morality. That doesn't mean that Aslan inhabits every scene. To the contrary, Aslan shows up late, thus the consternation of the people trying to save the world. Where does God go when things go bad and why doesn't He always save the day? You'll have to see the movie to get the answers.

If there is a weakness to the movie, it's the screenplay. It was difficult to follow the storyline and the editing seemed choppy in parts. It was saved by the acting and the strength of the plot. It was good verses evil after all, so that was uncomplicated. Why some were bad wasn't quite explained and why the badness was allowed to happen wasn't exactly explained either. I was left wondering if the badness was, in fact, the leaders of Narnia's fault. The question was never answered. Still, the flaws in the story didn't detract from the movie too irritatingly.

The set design enthralls. The effects felt more real and richer this time around. The villains were not caricatures. In fact, this wasn't you average Harry Potter flick where the acting is as fantastical as the story line. I appreciated that the bad guys acted bad for bad reasons and didn't condescend.

In fact, that's what I like about C.S. Lewis' and Tolkien, both. Neither condescends to the young reader. The moral choices are life and death and you don't have to be 30 years old and wizened by war to understand the implications. In Prince Caspian, both Peter the High King and Caspian make selfish choices that get other people killed and both muster the courage to continue on and learn and do differently next time around. The scenes were intense.

The movie earns its PG rating. While there isn't gory bloodshed, the victims of hubris come to undeserving ends and the child watching this movie will know that good people die. So if you feel like your child is too young for that lesson, don't bring him. Overall, the film is visually gorgeous and not just because Caspian is a spoonful of yummy. The Narnians, castles, ruins and effects create a paradise that you'll want to jump through the screen to join. Go see it.

I give it 4/5 stars.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

New Incredible Hulk

I was a fan of the original show, but the movie by Ang Lee seemed too weird. I didn't even like the commercial and haven't seen the movie. I like me some Ed Norton. He was fantastic in The Illusionist and now, he's going to be the new Hulk? Hmmmmm...... I'm definitely interested.

Golden Compass Blues

Few movies or books have generated more desperate emails from concerned conservative friends than the Golden Compass. The last time I saw this intensity was when the Da Vinci Code came out as a movie. I had already read the book. It was clearly fiction to me--fantastical and hardly grounded in sound doctrine or history. The premise was intriguing and the book was a fun read. My faith wasn't shattered. I doubted few others would be either.

Now comes the Golden Compass. In this case, I haven't read the books, but plan to. Some put books with questionable content in the same category as porn--detritus that will pollute and confuse the mind. And while I grant the idea that the "dark arts" can poison the mind, it seems that to be able to have an intelligent conversation, understanding the arguments from all sides is necessary.

Adhering to my policy of waiting to read the books so that the movie isn't ruined (movies are invariably a disappointment) will no doubt color my interpretation somewhat as I understand that the movie has been watered down to appeal to the masses. In fact, even the atheists are up in arms:

Among the points of contention:

The movie refers to the ominous "Magisterium." But is this simply a totalitarian "authority," as the filmmakers say, or does it refer to the Roman Catholic Magisterium — meaning the pope in communion with the bishops?

Are mystical particles called "Dust" a euphemism for sin?

That's the implication in Random House's teacher's guide, which suggests students "use the Bible, a storybook, or an encyclopedia to read about the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam and Eve."

In the publisher's interview with Pullman, he says his books depict "the Temptation and Fall not as the source of all woe and misery, as in traditional Christian teaching, but as the beginning of true human freedom, something to be celebrated, not lamented."

So the film isn't doctrinaire enough--a point I find amusing in this post-modern world.

Catholics are equally dismayed at the movie and have moved to educate their members:

The Catholic League will have none of that. "We're just taking Pullman at his word," says Donohue. The League produced a pamphlet, The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked, debunking Pullman on 95 different points; copies have been distributed to every Catholic bishop in the USA.

"The movie is just bait for the books, which are worse," and the chance to make more movies, Donohue says. "We don't want unsuspecting Christian parents to … take the kids to the film, buy the trilogy, and unknowingly introduce their children to the wonders of atheism and the damnation of Catholicism."

I won't take my kids to the movie, though they enjoy fantasy adventures. They didn't see Happy Feet and Sesame Street isn't played in this house, either. Once they have a good, solid foundation and learn some critical thinking skills, then we can work our way through a movie like The Golden Compass.

The world brims over with objectionable ideology. The notion that there are no moral absolutes and that we can each define the world our own way makes it seem like all ideas are equally valid. But that's certainly not what these Atheists believe. They believe religion to be poison to the mind. They believe that freedom is only possible apart from God. In short, they believe and have faith in something, it's just not God.

It's important for Christians to understand the arguments if only because it demonstrates free will. For all the moral relativism on the Left, they hardly seem interested in understanding why people might disagree with them. Narrow minded, churlish, and resistant to nuance, it causes one to wonder who the zealots are these days.

Beowulf: There Are No Heroes

We have firmly established that I am a hard-core, socially awkward, fantasy-reading,, sci-fi watching nerd. Just wanted to remind you of that while reviewing the movie Beowulf.

Beowulf, oh ye of firm, round, hairless buttocks and impressive, um, courage! This movie strikes me as a satire of all monster v. man films out there rather than a serious treatment of the epic poem. I giggled throughout. Most of the rest of the audience didn't seem to get the joke.

Everything, and I mean, everything was enhanced in this remarkable cartoon. It was a cartoon. While the characters looked and sounded like Angelina Jolie (naked and gold), Anthony Hopkins (bloated and bulked up) and Ray Winstone (ripped and taut), they were cartoons. Thus, the raters of the movie deemed the fake boobs and butts acceptable for children. I would NOT bring any child under fifteen to this movie, but I'm strict.

If you're going to fully appreciate the spectacle, see this movie in 3D. You want to be blood-spattered and oozed on, if possible, otherwise it's not worth it, right? Grendel is hideous beyond all measure. I caught myself examining his skinned arms, filleted jaw, and disfigured head. But even that turned funny. He was like a puss-filled Gollum from the Lord of the Rings.

The emotions conveyed by the animation lacked humanness. They seemed to focus more on Beowulf's facial ticks and features and he felt the most "real". Otherwise, the entire picture was an experience, much like the movie 300. There was little emotional engagement. In fact, the movie reminded me of Moulin Rouge and even Chicago to a lesser extent or going to a Cirque du Soleil show, where the story is the spectacle. There is no narrative.

Modern writers eschew a plot for fear it will turn off the masses. It is either the experience (300) or to be preached at incessantly (Lions for Lambs, Happy Feet). Can't a movie have an engaging story where a hero clearly wins? Oh wait, I remember. There are no heroes.

My only "deep thought" associated with this film came during the very last scene. I leaned over to ask my husband if men, were indeed, so easily mislead. He said yes, but I thought that conclusion to be rather misandric. Surely men exist who wouldn't be tempted by the likes of a naked demon Angelina Jolie purring false promises destined to be eternal torment.

Was the joke on Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt or was the joke on us? I bet the latter. The movie should be categorized as a comedy.

In The Shadow of the Moon

Sounds like an excellent documentary about the Apollo crew. Thought you might want to see it.

Bourne Ultimatum

There's always an evil doctor. Did you expect anything else was behind Jason Bourne's mechanized killing? (Bourne Ultimatum official website.)

Well, there's a bit more than that, of course. We get to peek at water-boarding and sleep deprivation and the other tools CIA stooges use to make people say and do and turn into anything. Would that it were true. Hardened terrorists could be behaviorally modified into docile herbivores living out their days ruminating in a pasture guarded only by a sheep dog.

Fancifulness and not-so-subtle political jabs aside, the final installment of Robert Ludlum's Bourne series revs up your sympathetic nervous system into overdrive for two hours and doesn't let go. Bourne finds a newspaper reporter sourced by a mole in the CIA. The all-powerful CIA has control of video cameras and phones with nary an impediment and finds the reporter who has already been found by Bourne. The hapless reporter doesn't realize how in over his head he is until Bourne kills three assassins right in front of him. "This is serious!" Bourne yells at the guy. It gets more serious.

The break-neck pace, the musical urgency, the spare dialogue and Matt Damon's bleak demeanor make for another riveting production. The intensity is upped again by Paul Greengrass's hand-held camera work. More than one cameraman must have ended up with a broken nose because he was in the middle of the fight. The only problem, this time, was that the camera was so close, the action so fast and real, it was impossible to actually see what was happening. Whack! Whack! Whack! Blurrrrrrr! Dead guy. It made for excessive visual confusion. Martial arts guys will be p.o.'d. They won't be able to see many of the cool moves.

Bourne's journey ends where he could never remember where it began. The last series in the movie has him going back to the training facility. In one scene he walks down the hallway where room after locked room looks suspiciously like a prison and one wonders how many other poor Jasons are locked away mid-mind mold. I was half-way expecting Bourne to open the doors and free the suffering fools like so many dogs at the pound, but the movie is more sophisticated than that.

The real question from the movie: Does Bourne end up freed from his prison? You'll just have to see for yourself.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

Pirates of the Disbelievin'

Good grief! What an absolute mess Pirates of the Caribbean was!

The movie is a mish-mash of bombast and chaotic emptiness. Can we not even have an anti-hero act truly heroic? The movie tanks but it wasn't be because Johnny Depp swashed when he should have buckled. He flitted around with the energy of scores of Cap'n Jacks. Didn't work.

The writers should be pushed off the gang-plank. The pathetic plot was their fault. That the producers and director decided to pillage some interesting characters and bring them back to a living death spoke to their pirate-like greed.

Don't give your money to pirates. Watch it on video.

Oh, the special effects were good.

Serenity NOW!

Have you watched these yet? The best show that never made it is sparking rumblings that it might come back. Man, I would love a serenity series.

300: Kneel Before Greatness

Just got back from viewing 300 with a half-full theater. 300 is bloody and gory but not horrifying in a Braveheart way. It was cartoonish enough that the deaths portrayed felt symbolic rather than individual and real. I cried no tears when anyone, including (spoiler alert: stop reading if you don't know history) Leonidis bit it. (And I am a girl given to tears during movies--even blood and guts ones.) So is the movie emotionally empty? Well not so much emotionally empty, as philosophically and physically full. Like the Rocky series, 300 strips away doubt and fear which leaves room for contemplation. All good sci-fi/fantasy philosophizes among the fantastical. So the watcher can either leave the theatre reveling in the spectacle or wondering at the meaning, or both.

A rock-n-roll thumping score, over-the-top visuals, and Fred Astaire grace-filled battle-scenes featuring flying heads and spurting limbs serve as the backdrop to the story. The theme is simple and that is why critics scorn (see here, here, here and here) it and audiences love it. On the evil Persian side symbolized by a gold-adorned Xerxes there is hubris, decadence, slavery, treachery, bribery, betrayal, theft, cowardice, rape and weakness. On the good Spartan side symbolized by Leonidis and his wife Queen Gorgo there is faith, restraint (except during fighting—leave no prisoners—another reason for reviewers to hate it), freedom, loyalty, willingness, courage, giving, bravery and strength. The good side wins even in loss.

Spartan's King Leonidis is offered a savior's choice: “Worship the devil in return for all the kingdoms of the world.” Leonidis declines and tosses the messengers into a well, thus declaring war on the vast Persian army. Leonidis was not in a mood to treat with the enemy, also known as diplomacy, also known as appeasement, also known as certain submission, i.e. slavery. Perhaps this is the biggest sticking point with critics (see above): the lack of nuance. For example, here’s a “nuanced” sum up from the NY Post’s Kyle Smith:

But keeping in mind Slate's Mickey Kaus' Hitler Rule - never compare anything to Hitler - it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a "300" screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again.

Why, if I don’t miss my mark, that’s a rather over-the-top and lack of nuanced review—going all Hitler and heil-fives.

One of the more interesting ideas put forward in the movie deals with gender roles in a free versus a shame and power culture. Dr. Sanity has written about this extensively—making the link between subjugation/deification of women (can’t find the link right now) and the frustrated aggression of the men enslaved by their own bigotry. There is a somewhat graphic love scene between the King and Queen where both enjoy positions of power. This would be in stark contrast to Xerxes’ women as sex slaves who exist purely for the men’s pleasure. Their service to men was portrayed as empty compared with a good old romp of equals. In addition, Queen Gorbo has the nerve to speak out to the Persian messenger and the Spartan Council. How dare she? Well, she serves as the moral compass to King Lionisis; they are a team, and a formidable one. Marriage and family as societal strength surely also riles the critics.

300 lays out simple themes for the taking, the last one the most important. Persia was undone by their decadence and softness as much as anything. If America is to take a lesson, it should be taken from the Persians. The high ideals and simple beauty of democracy deserve a fight. Riches and indulgence and decadence and licentiousness will undo the greatest of cultures. America should worry about rotting within. That’s a danger bigger than any suicide bomber. With a weak will to protect the ideals, the enemy is already victorious.

Winners and losers, right and wrong, good and evil. This movie will make a lot of money. The progressives will despair.

As an aside: This is not a movie for children. I'm not sure it's a movie for kids under 17. A couple dull-witted parents had their four year old daughter (or so) and another family had their eight year old son with them. The movie is romantically violent in a way that would be overwhelming for children. Scar-for-life, nightmares-until-adulthood type of scenes abound. It is downright abusive to bring children to movies like this.