Robin Hood (2010)

Watched with Josh and Phil in September of 2011

I am a big Robin Hood “fan” though of course I do not entirely endorse his behavior.  I read the story when I was a wee boy and have continued to enjoy it throughout my life.  That being said, this particular rendition pushed the envelope.

First, the summary.  The basics are still all here.  Robin in this case dies on the Crusades and the “new” Robin comes upon him as he dies, agrees to take his father’s sword back to the family, and off we go.  The widow is wooed, the local corrupt Sheriff, working for the real bad guy, Godfrey, who is a traitor working for France to overthrow weak King John.  Can the new Robin and his band of merry men take control of the situation, or will England go down in flames?  And of course, will the new Robin win the heart of his newly found “wife” Marian?  The answer to both, of course, is yes.  But it takes a while to get there.

I don’t mind playing with an old well-worn plot to give it new life.  I do mind when the old plot’s whole noble breeding is cast off for a more modern and sexy one.  I am a Ridley Scott fan; I just am not a big fan of this movie of his.  Yes, he does action second to none, so those scenes are great.  But the overall moral tone seems to have turned for the worse.  I liked the choice of Crowe as Robin, found Blanchett (who is a capable actress) a little less well suited for Marian. Scott Grimes made a winning Will Scarlet, and Mark Addy was someone who I actually had thought would make a great Friar Tuck before he was even cast for this film.

The film is worth watching, but don’t have high hopes.  It won’t deliver much beyond the initial punch.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Watched November, 2011

I had heard a lot about how I “needed to watch” this work, so I jumped in with a rather open mind as those who had suggested it are usually good to me.  I have to admit that there is a certain amount of edgy humor to this but overall I was underwhelmed.  Enough so that I probably won’t do the sequel.

Twin brothers in Boston set out on a “mission from God” of sorts to rid the city of evil by putting bullets in said evil while an openly gay investigator seeks to track them down.  Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flanery do a decent job with the twins while in many ways Willem Dafoe steals the show as the gay inspector.  Why he has to be openly gay is totally beyond me.  But Dafoe is wonderful in the part.  While the plot leaves a lot to be desired, I won’t spoil it by revealing more than this, other than to say there is a truck load of bullets and blood.

I felt the writing was strong on one liners but weak on a plot that was compelling.  These guys had a pseudo-religious Latin “rite” they recited before each vengeful killing and that was the basis for the action.  Something like, “And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand. That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In nomine Patri. Et Fili. Spiritus Sancti.” If that makes sense for you, then you should like the film.  I did not really get it so I was less than entertained.

Not real sure on my recommendation here.  I might have to watch it with someone who likes it before I understand it and can give a true recommendation.  Until then, be warned, and always look behind you for twins bearing arms.

 

Slight Change of Plans…

Just to make clear what has sort of taken a year or two to happen…this site is now totally about my movie thoughts.  My book reviews have all moved over to my book blog:  http://bookchat.wordpress.com/

Hope to see you at both!  I am just as sporadic as ever.

Public Enemies (2009)

Watched December, 2011

A rather loose handed redo on the life of John Dillinger, this film seeks to continue the love affair America has with the gangster movie.  With Johnny Depp as Dillinger, the film has an able leading man.  A lot of time is given to his love affair with Viola played by Elena Kenney.  While the film takes liberties, combines stories, and moves things around chronologically, overall it’s a decent rendition of his life.  Of course we face the same issue that we always face with a gangster movie: we are brought to sympathize with the Devil, or at least one of his minions.  But I will deal with that issue elsewhere.  For now, here is what I thought…

I did not like some of the liberties with Dillinger’s life.  Now I say that even while realizing that if the director was not going to play around a little, then he would have no reason to make yet another movie about this character.  To date, there are some eight other feature length films given in whole or part to this man’s exploits.  And Michael Mann (this pic’s director) likes to play with history (see his films Last of the Mohicans and Ali as examples of this propensity).

I did like the acting, especially the relative unknown Kenney (her first feature length role) and how close Depp came to looking like the actual Dillinger.  I felt Christian Bale made a believeable and effective nemesis for Depp’s character.  Still would have to take Costner vs Deniro in The Untouchables, but this was a good pairing.

If you like the gangster genre (and yes, all my Christian friends, you can like gangster movies without becoming one yourself), then this is not the top tier of The Godfather or The Untouchables or Good Fellas, but it ain’t bad, kid.

The Rite (2011)

Watched September, 2011

The young priest in training who views demon possession as a skeptic, Michael Kovak (played by Colin O’Donoghue) heads to the Vatican for training in exorcism, runs into the real deal by working with Father Lucas (Anthony Hopkins) and changes his mind on the whole thing.  That is about as a short as I can sum it up without heading into spoilers.

I felt through the whole movie that the outcome was predictable; I was just watching to see how we would get there.  I watched it with my two oldest sons and I think we all felt it had its moments but in the end was too typical on the plot line.  They certainly did their best to scare us along the way.  O’Donoghue was not a strong enough lead, perhaps as suggested by Hopkins getting most of the face time on the trailer.  Hopkins is a great actor who, apart from doing well in the possessed scenes, sort of dialed the rest of the film.  And that is coming from a huge Hopkins fan.

The whole demonic thing seems to be coming back.  Not sure why.  The Exorcist was/is easily one of the most disturbing movies I have watched, ever.  When they say, “based in part on a true story” it seems to take things up a notch, but I have never jumped on that wagon.  It is either true to reality or not; whether it actually happened or simply “might have” is not relevant to me.  Overall, I would not want folks to waste time on this movie unless they are intrigued by the suspenseful effects the film employs.  You could miss it without being worse off.

Café Lumiére (2003)

Watched January, 2012

For some time now I have been challenging myself to find and watch films that are outside what has become the popular norm.  Most of these have been foreign.  This one was one of the best in this genre so far.

The film is centered on a young single Japanese girl, Yoko, who is going through the motions.  We find during the film that she has a friend, Hajime, who meets her often to simply make small talk and share each other’s hobbies.  She is a writer researching a Taiwanese composer and Hajime helps her run down information (cd’s, maps, etc).  He is completely into trains or what we would call street cars that run in and out and all around the Japanese life.  In fact, one begins to feel throughout the movie that Yoko is most at home and at ease when on the train.  She is 3 months pregnant by a young man she met in Taiwan whom she is unwilling to marry.  This brings tension from her parents who are cast as the prototypical Japanese family of tradition.  I could go on with details of what happens, but perhaps you can already sense that this is not a film with a complex or “happening” plot.

This is one of those films that demand you step into it.  You have to enter the life of the characters.  You can’t simply be engaged by some action filled or dramatic or funny plot.  You are instead asked to listen, look, observe, sense what is going on.  This is accomplished in a number of startling ways: the director uses long takes, extended silences, and a focus on mundane conversations. In one scene inside a tempura shop, the camera simply observes people coming and going for several minutes while we hear the sound of plates clattering, and food being fried.  You have to stay awake not because you might miss some major plot twist or explosion, but because you have to be observant to see or hear anything.

I enjoyed this film because I went into it with some notion of what I would be getting into.  The film is to honor the 100^th birthday of a director who made such films (Yasujiro Ozu) by a fan of his who makes these kind of films as well (Hou Hsiao-hsien).  I wish there were more of these with great filming, great acting, and the compulsion to make the viewer “see.”

As this was so new for me, I would hesitate to do my typical review of what I liked/disliked as I am not sure what I think yet.  I would also cautiously recommend the film.  I would challenge those who are up for it to pull themselves outside the normal “Hollywood” flick to something that is much more dependent upon our effort than the budget of the film.  The delight is all in the details and how much is there for me to find rather than for me to simply get from the film’s “sermon.”

Remember Me (2010)

Watched September, 2011

Not really worth much of a review, not going to spend much time on it.  Some reviewers found something deep and worthy here; I felt it was too ho-hum, same ol’ whiney “Daddy doesn’t get me” kind of stuff.  Almost everything in it is based on a love of the rebellious motive and misconstrued notions of what constitutes a real relationship.  I don’t believe I am copping out, but giving it what it deserves, very little.  Not a recommendation from me.

The Company Men (2010)

Watched November 2011

A mega company pulls the typical downsizing crap on several of its mid level executives.  Various reactions ensue. The plot revolves around how each of the men deals with their situation.  Ben Affleck is young and thus the most reactionary, finally pulling a construction job from his bro in law, Kevin Costner.  Tommy Lee Jones is close to retirement, helped start the business years ago, and can’t believe he has been let go, but resolves his situation in a much grander manner.  Chris Cooper is the most heart wrenching because he seems unable to overcome the blow.

I have never been a Ben Affleck fan (Good Will Hunting excepted), finding him with very little below the surface and a face even his mother probably struggles to trust.  He just always looks like he is lying, and having been run over by the occasional well placed lie in my time, that look alone turns me off his stuff.  Tommy Lee can be great, here he is less than he has been, but still probably turns the best performance.  But the biggest issue for me in watching this flick is that I watched it just as the latest and most surprising lay off of my career was starting to heal.  It did rip the scab back open for the weekend, but I think I am past that now (two months later!).

I did like the “how it really happens” feel of the picture.  From time to time I have been treated poorly, but I am happy that it has never been this bad.  Some of these scenes were just brutal and I think when the nation is in a recession, our culture needs a film like this to remind those who have avoided the big hurt so far (and really it seems to be a small group at this point), just what the rest of us feel when the world of work, employment, paycheck, etc. come crashing down.  Especially in a world that has forgotten the providence of God, what it means to pray for their “daily bread” and that life is more than our resume.

I give this a guarded recommendation.  There is redemptive worth to this film, even with the lack luster performances.  But in our current setting, it could be unsettling, and maybe that is its greatest worth.

Beowulf (1999)

Movie Review – By: Philip Elliott

11/17/11

The movie Beowulf (1999) completely modernized the whole concept of Beowulf, in which some like me could argue to say it was not necessary at all. While Beowulf the book had Beowulf be some hero who had traveled from sea with some armed men to help fight Grendel, the movie had it as Beowulf travels alone and must fight evil or he will turn evil. The movie also had it to where Grendel was inside of the castle and would wait until it was night and then he would kill. However, the movie also added it to where if anyone runs away from the castle they will die from these guards outside of the castle, for the guards believe anything that leaves the castle is wicked or cursed.

I would not recommend this movie at all for many reasons. The main reason why I did not enjoy the movie was the fact that the movie added in Roland to the story, and I thought that was not a necessary change the movie made. Watching a movie of a book with a lot of changes jut did not seem to be like the same story I knew. The fact that some directors like to film a picture based on a book, but then completely make these major changes to the story is just one of the many thing I just will not understand.

However, there were some parts of the movie that I did enjoy. With this movie I liked how they viewed Grendel as a big scary unnatural beast that contains these various powers. That is what I think the book of Beowulf was trying to describe to the readers. I also enjoyed in a way how they made Beowulf a fighter who fights on his own and does not need any help, because that just makes Beowulf appear to be an even more heroic person.

Overall I would say this movie was not a good attempt of the story of Beowulf at all. If someone is going to make a film based on a book make it as accurate as you can, because why take the time and money to make a film based on a book when all what you are going to do is in other words rewrite the story the way you like it. Due to these things I would say the movie deserves only one star out of four.

 

The World’s Fastest Indian (2005)

Viewings – I first watched about half of this on my computer through streaming in 2008; then watched the whole DVD alone in late 2008; then asked my dad to watch it with my two oldest in 2009, then I rewatched it with Phil, Josh, and Caleb in 2011.

The above indicates that I liked the film.  The following are the reasons for this:

1. Speed – I love speed and this has not just an intellectual or visual speed, but one you can actually feel.
2. Aging – more and more I am thinking about getting old.  This is an interesting take on that whole area.
3. What I will call willy-nilly or serendipity – much of this movie is about the relentless pursuit of one’s dream through all the possible obstacles that might arise.  One of the great moments in this occurs early when he races the cyclists in New Zealand.  His laughter at his crack up is so delightful and perfectly timed that I laugh every time, even after the initial jolt of what happens is gone by having already seen the picture before.  I laughed about it when I wrote this.
4. Trust, almost to naïveté but not quite – There is a belief in others in this picture that is engaging for me.
5. The Farmer’s Can-Do – throughout this picture one of the major themes is that one can make do, one can get through obstacles by solving the problem.  A major moment for me there is when in the middle of the desert he loses his wheel to his cart.  No problem. There is this limb over here not doing anything.  Bob’s Your Uncle and off we go.

All this to say that as big a Tony Hopkins fan as I was before this picture, (and I am realizing that I have not written up many of the films that I love of his yet, but what is Christmas vacation for after all?) I am a larger one after it.  This is perfect for his acting.  He fits it completely.

The obligatory tut-tut on his affairs with the ladies he comes across, and I was not taken with the drag queen inserted seemingly out of political points to be made, but overall there is very little I did not like about this great film.  I recommend it to all of you.