Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
by Corey Poff

“For the time would soon come when hobbits
would shape the fortunes of all.”

Is it possible for Hollywood to adapt a classic piece of literature for the silver screen without mangling it beyond recognition? Peter Jackson thought so. He took the greatest fantasy series ever written... and gave us the greatest fantasy series ever filmed.   

The Fellowship of the Ring (rated PG-13 for epic battle sequences and some scary images) is the first installment of The Lord of the Rings trilogy - produced and directed by Peter Jackson - and in it we are introduced to the magnificent world of Middle Earth.

The tale centers around an unassuming Hobbit named Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), who inherits the One Ring – a ring the Dark Lord Sauron desperately desires for his own. Aided by a loyal fellowship of friends, Frodo embarks on a perilous journey to destroy the ring once and for all in the fires of Mount Doom, deep within the Dark Lord's realm of Mordor.

In making a film like this, a significant temptation for any director would be to place greater emphasis on spectacle than on story. We live in an age of mind-blowing technical wizardry; because of this, many a filmmaker willingly settles for creating a CGI extravaganza with little or no semblance of intelligence. Whatever potential their story had is squandered in an overwhelming barrage of eye-candy. And alas, special effects alone do not a good movie make.

Thankfully, Jackson knows this, and he uses his team's technical prowess to propel the story rather than kill it. His love for Tolkien's world and it's characters is undeniably clear from the start, giving the film (and the entire trilogy, for that matter) a vibrant life which would have been sorely lacking otherwise. And while it is to be expected that films will differ from their source material, Jackson never strays far, a fact that will no doubt be greatly appreciated by lovers of the books.  

Jackson & Co.'s recreation of Middle Earth is nothing short of breathtaking; and paired with it is a masterful soundtrack from veteran composer Howard Shore. Weta Workshop provides the stunning array of sets, costumes, weapons, and creatures, all of which are perfectly conceived and crafted. The cast is flawless across the board: Viggo Mortensen IS Aragorn, Ian McKellan IS Gandalf, Elijah Wood IS Frodo, etc. You get the picture. Combine these elements with excellent cinematography, fabulous directing, and heart-pounding battle sequences, and the results are sure to satisfy even the most skeptical of Tolkien enthusiasts.

Tolkien's trilogy, while not truly an allegory, does contain numerous biblical themes, and the majority of these are carried over quite well in Jackson's screen adaption. Writers more qualified than I have studied and expounded on these themes, and you would do well to seek them out, as I have no intention of rendering an exhaustive analysis here.

Even so, I would like to touch upon a theme which is, I think, one of the plainest and also one of the most important.

Throughout the film (and indeed, throughout the entire trilogy), Frodo exhibits an admirable determination to choose hardship over ill-gotten ease. He is not obligated to carry the ring to the fire, and it is quite plain that his quest will be long, arduous, and may even claim his life. He understands all of this - and yet he selflessly resolves to go on because it is the right thing to do.  

At one point in the film, Frodo is tempted by another character to abandon this course of action and pursue a less dangerous road. He listens intently and then replies, “I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart.” This is consistent with the words of Proverbs 16:25, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Frodo realizes that should he choose to accept this safer, more comfortable road, he might find respite for a short time; but in the end, no matter how hard he tries to escape, darkness and death will find him.

As Christians, we are constantly tempted by Satan and the World to abandon our long and difficult race, and settle for the pleasures of earth. Yet these pleasures will prove to be false, vain, and deadly in the end. As C.S. Lewis once said, “I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself."

Read More

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Pirates of the caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

By Eric Maus

(This review contains spoilers)

"Drink up, me 'earties."

  Filmmakers find inspiration for their movies in the oddest of places. Some films, like Transformers and G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, were based upon best-selling action figures, while others such as Snow White and Cinderella were based on fairy tales of old. Pirates of the Caribbean was based on a Disneyworld ride of the same name. I'm sure that when this ride was being constructed, it's builders had no idea that it would be the inspiration for one the most popular movie franchises of all time.

   When the peaceful colony of Port Royal is attacked by the legendary pirate vessel, the Black Pearl, and Elizabeth Swann, daughter of the governor, is kidnapped, Jack Sparrow, a crazed pirate, and Will Turner, a blacksmith apprentice, set out together to rescue her, with the British Navy right on their heels. Little do they know that Barbossa, captain of the Black Pearl, along with his crew, have been cursed. They have been doomed for eternity to neither live, nor die, nor enjoy the things of the world. More than eager to be rid of their curse, they are willing to do anything to reverse its effects. Even if that means a blood sacrifice.

   This film (rated PG13 for violence and scary images) completely encapsulates the feel for a pirate movie. No one has done a better job as of yet. Borrowing from old tales such as Treasure Island, this movie incorporates every feature related to pirates. From rum to treasure to walking the plank to parrots to cannon battles to quests on the high seas, this movie has it all. The spectacular visual effects and cinematography provided by Walt Disney Pictures make this adventure all the more alive. The dialogue is brilliant, full of "yo-ho's" and all other well-known pirate quips, making this movie extremely enjoyable and very funny.

   We all know that this film would be nothing without the legendary Jack Sparrow and the evil Capt. Barbossa. Award-winning Johnny Depp stars as Jack, and created for us one of the most well-known and beloved characters of all time. Geoffrey Rush as Capt. Barbossa is simply marvelous, and in my opinion, pulls off one of the best performances of all time. The roles of pirates Pintel and Ragetti are also masterfully done, making you laugh till you're blue in the face. Actors Lee Arenberg and Mackenzie Crook deserve recognition for their stellar performances.

   This film offers many interesting moral aspects, such as the battle between Jack Sparrow's conscience and his crazed pirate mind, to give this movie enough depth to sail it's course. The plot is also very well crafted and paced. The problems with this film lie with two of its characters. We all know their names. To begin with, I will not hesitate in saying that Will Turner is one of my least favorite movie characters. Ever. Ironically played by Orlando Bloom, this guy tries to be the hero, and misses by a million miles. Deeply in love with Elizabeth Swann, he will stop at nothing to save her. That means he will do and say the most stupid things he can come up with. When he shouts lines like, "On my word, do as I say, or I'll pull this trigger and you'll be lost to Davy Jones's locker," our reaction is not, "Wow, this guy is so awesome." Instead, we groan and wait for Jack to figure things out. Elizabeth Swann (played by Kiera Knightley), on the other hand, is not any better. Not only is she a paper-cut, stereotypical 'princess' character, but she isn't respectable at all. She swears to Norrington of the British Navy that if he assists her in saving Will Turner, she will marry him. He agrees, and Will is saved. Then, when Jack is to be hanged for being a pirate, Will jumps in and helps Jack escape. Elizabeth is right behind them, telling Will how much she loves him, etc., completely blowing off her commitment to Norrington. And to top it all off, she delivers the worst line in movie history. She says about Will, "He's not a blacksmith...he's a pirate." I guess sailing on a ship once or twice makes you a murdering cutthroat. Who knew?

   So, do I like this movie? Yes, very much so. It's funny, spectacular, and action-packed. I just wish a couple of the characters could have been better constructed. Am I happy that Will and Elizabeth don't have a part in POTC: On Stranger Tides? Very very happy.

Read More

Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood (2010)

by Samuel Hadfield

“Rise and Rise again, until lambs become lions.”

                        Note: this review is based on the theatrical version, not the Director’s Cut

So, it’s obvious that there are a plethora of movies based on the hero of Sherwood, Robin Hood.  Actors range from Errol Flynn to Kevin Costner.  Now, we are given Ridley Scott’s interpretation of the story.  Is it good enough to stand out of the crowd?  In fact, Robin Hood (rated PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content) is a very entertaining movie, if you don’t mind the classic story being twisted.  That’s right, this movie isn’t about stealing from the rich and giving from the poor, and King John isn’t even the bad guy.  If that’s what you were looking for, prepared to be disappointed.  If you want something fresh, you’re good to go for this is, “the untold story behind the legend.”  

            This story starts of in the Crusades and focuses on the star of the show, Robin Longstride (played by award winning Russell Crowe).  Veering away from tradition, King Richard is slain in battle and Robin, along with a few comrades, escape into the forest, not sure where fate will bring them.  They run into an ambush not meant for them and that leads into the rest of the story.  The tale is pretty complex, but, as it turns out, Philip of France (Jonathan Zaccai) and Godfrey (Mark Strong) are plotting against John (Oscar Isaac) who has taken his brother’s throne.  It’s funny because Godfrey is actually the keeper of the treasure.  Anyway, the plot has lots of twists and turns, and unfortunately is difficult to follow at times.

            Graphics wise, this movie is extremely well done.  There is amazing scenery, outstanding cinematography, and very good effects.  Ridley Scott and his crew are full throttle here. The acting and sound are also both superb.  The ringing and clashing of swords is very realistic, dialogue is top notch, and fight scenes are intense and well done.

            This isn’t the familiar “jolly good fellow” Robin Hood we all know and love, it is dark, gritty, and not for young children.  However, it doesn’t have the stronger restrictions of Scott’s previous movies.  The plot can be hard to follow at times, and it definitely isn’t the revolutionary breakthrough that Gladiator was, but this film was still a fresh breath of air that most viewers will find worth their time. 

Read More

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Alice in Wonderland

By Eric Maus

“Have you any idea why a raven is like a writing desk?”

   Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland(rated PG for violence and scary images) is a very spectacular film. This film is not the adaption of Lewis Carroll’s book onto the screen, however, it’s a movie that takes Carroll’s unique world, characters, and his ridiculously bizarre sense of style, and creates an entirely original, fresh, and ridiculous cinema experience.

    Meant to be a sort of sequel to Carroll’s original plot (if you can call it that), this movie begins with a 19 year old Alice, who is being unwillingly pushed into a marriage with the ugliest man alive. In an attempt to escape the engagement party, she follows a queer rabbit with a waistcoat and watch, and stumbles into a large hole.

  She finds herself in a strange and ridiculously beautiful world, called Underland. Abnormal creatures, such as talking flowers, floating cats, and the ferocious Bandersnatch inhabit the land, and they are ruled by the cruel Red Queen, who has a massive head and enjoys lopping off the heads of those who don’t share her unfortunate condition. Alice, with the help of characters such as the Mad Hatter, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, Dormouse, and the White Queen, sets out to defeat the Red Queen and her wicked servants, before they all ‘lose their heads’.

   This is totally a spectacle driven film. Every one knows that Tim Burton has a very unique, bizarre, and clever style, one that has pleased his audience again and again, in movies such as Nightmare Before Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Corpse Bride, and he definitely lives up to our expectations again here. In Alice in Wonderland, we are given an amazing world, filled with crisp colors, gnarly trees, towering castles, chessboard battlefields, and a mad tea party; if this world truly existed, I believe Lewis Carroll would like to live out the rest of his days here, if he weren’t dead already.  

   The dialogue would also have made Carroll proud; it’s ridiculous, clever, and hilarious. The cinematography is stellar, along with the film score by Danny Elfman. The plot, however, gets a bit messy towards the end. Although it starts off nicely, it begins to slide around as the third act climax approaches. That said, this detail is definitely not enough to ruin the movie.

   The acting is this film is ridiculously awesome. Mia Wasikowska plays as Alice, and completely makes the role her own. The amazing Johnny Depp plays the Mad Hatter, and, as always, creates for us a character we will never forget. This film also hosts many other famous actors such as Ann Hathaway, Michael Sheen, and Alan Rickman, but in my opinion, the best performance in this film belongs to Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. Her efforts in playing the bulbous headed tyrant were absolutely incredible.

   Many folks say this film supports a feminist agenda. I believe this is a bit of a stretch. Alice, who obviously is a girl, was the protagonist of the books, and just because she happens to be the hero of a movie that was based on a story that Burton enjoyed, doesn’t mean that this movie is all about girl power.

   What this film is really about, however, is something more profound. In the beginning of Alice’s adventures, she refuses to accept that the place where she has found herself is an actual place; she keeps telling herself it’s only a dream. Therefore, since it’s only a dream, she doesn’t have to take part in the troubles of the abused citizens of Underland. Everything is impossible, she says. Still, the Mad Hatter and the rest are constantly insisting, since it was prophesied in the Oraculum, that she will eventually slay the evil Jabberwocky with the Vorpul sword. After she is finally convinced that she really is in this bizarre place, she still refuses to believe that anything she can do will help. Again, she says, “This is impossible.” “Only if you believe it is,” responds the Mad Hatter. This movie encourages faith in the face of unbelief, determination over hopelessness. Just because the situation you’re placed in isn’t exactly your idea of the best day ever, isn’t an excuse for you to back down, and become passive.

   Another highlight of this movie is its depiction of Alice’s father. In the majority of most modern films, dads are the primary source of amusement; we’re encouraged to laugh at their blunders and stupidity. Alice’s father, although he passes away at the beginning of the film, is presented as her mentor, protector, and guide. He gives her a small bit of wisdom that she carries with her through the rest of the film. In the end, Alice takes on the character traits of her father, and not the greed and selfishness of the rest of her family.

   So, in conclusion, this film offers both morals and a visual treat. It also gives us exactly what Carroll did; a fun and ridiculous story. Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogoves and the mome raths outgrabe. Believe me, spell check does not like most of those words.

Read More

Blood Diamond (2006)

Blood Diamond (2006)

by

Santiago Pliego

“Sometimes I wonder, will God ever forgive us for what we've done to each other? Then I look around and I realize, God left this place a long time ago.”

This review contains spoilers

In the darkness of a straw hut, a match is struck. A fisherman bends of over his son and gently puts his hand on his head to wake him up to go to school. The boy, with a croaky voice, complains and says that English boys do not go to school every day. “Every day,” the father responds, “Just like you. So you can become a doctor, not mend the nets like your father.” On the way to school, the fisherman and his son joke and play. They walk alone on a sandy road that shines in vibrancy with the light of the sun. A cool wind brushes their faces and flaps the fisherman’s unbuttoned shirt around like a flag. The stillness and relaxed ambience is suddenly tortured by the sound of approaching trucks and hip-hop music. When the fisherman turns and faces the direction of the sound, he is terrified; trucks loaded with jeering rebels wielding AK-47s and machetes are blazing through the side road and the fisherman realizes with horror that they are headed towards the village, where his wife and daughters are still inside the hut. He pulls his son to his side and they race towards the village, in an effort to save their family. Out of breath, they reach the edge of the village, where the rebels are already shooting without distinction anything that moves. Most of the rebels are no older than 12 years old. The fisherman frantically reaches for his machete and cuts a hole in the side of his hut, amid the cries of his family and the shots of the rebels, in order to take his family away. He manages to squeeze them through the gap, but as they run away, three rebels spring from the side and tackle the fisherman. “Go!” he screams to his terrified family, as he tries to struggle with the three rebels, to no avail. As he is captured, the last thing he hears is his son, screaming, “Papa!” This is Sierra Leone, 1993.

So begins the film Blood Diamond, directed by Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai, Defiance), which tells the story of a fisherman, Solomon Vandi (Djimon Hounsou), a Rhodesian diamond smuggler, Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), and an American reporter, Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connely). When Solomon is captured after a rebel attack on his village, he is sent to the diamond camps to mine diamonds in order to finance the rebels’ war against the government. While he is there, he finds a pink diamond the size of a birds’ egg and hides it from the commander of the labor camp. After an attack on the mines by government forces, he is confused for a rebel and sent to prison alongside the commander, who demands to know where he hid the diamond. Danny Archer, a recently-arrested diamond smuggler/ex-military, happens to be in the prison, and when he hears about the diamond, uses his military connections to release him and Solomon from prison, because he wants Solomon to lead him to the diamond. At the same time, Archer is being pursued by a Maddy Bowen, a reporter who wants to uncover the atrocities behind the diamond industry. She has published many articles before, but in order to accomplish something, she needs dates, names, and account numbers, and Archer has all that information about his buyers. The stories of these three characters are thus intertwined and they embark in a quest to find the diamond.

This film is extremely powerful. The cinematography and the music are excellent; both convey potent emotional undertones to the audience through their use of contrasts. Light and shadow are present in many different scenes, many times natural (day & night footage) and other times synthetic (the prison scene). The music as well changes drastically from one scene to another or even from one minute to the next, as is the case in scenes like the opening one. The sudden changes are not comfortable, but this Sierra Leone is far from being the perfect destination for summer vacations, and the music helps to display this. The editing is also very well executed; by intercalating scenes of brutality from the rebels’ part with scenes from ordinary life in Europe, the film argues that many times we are simply unaware of the suffering and destruction in other countries. The constant use of this style of editing goes along with the contrast motif presented in the cinematography and in the music. What stands out in the movie, though, is the acting. DiCaprio provides us with a mature, well-rounded performance that in many ways (alongside other films like The Departed, Body of Lies, and the Aviator) mark the era of more competent and intense DiCaprio. Connelly’s performance is quite good, but is definitely the weakest of the three main character’s portrayals. Hounsou’s performance, however, is the best in the whole film, and arguably one of the best I have ever seen in terms of an emotional, three-dimensional role. His ability to show emotions through his facial expressions is extraordinary, and coped with his voice and his movement in the frame, we get a frighteningly realistic character that is agonizing over his lost family. In terms of aesthetics and their use to convey a message, this film is one of the best films I’ve ever seen.

Alongside the performances and the characters comes the portrayal and embodiment of the different moral themes in the story through the characters’ narrative. The film’s worldview is biblical, yet it is not deemed as such in the film’s context. Nevertheless, the characters’ stories are compatible with the Christian worldview. Danny Archer is a self-centered and arrogant man who, due to his success as a soldier in Sierra Leone’s shattered army, is partnered with Colonel Coetzee and splits the profits of the diamond’s sales in return for protection. He is surrounded by men who consider the military a “company” that is in Sierra Leone only to make money by selling and rationing natural resources and conflict stones. Archer tells Solomon that he will help him find his family if Solomon leads him to where he buried the diamond, but in reality, Archer is planning to steal the diamond once Solomon shows him where it is. He thinks that killing is the way of life in Sierra Leone and is happy with how that helps his business. In other words, Archer is a man who stays with what he wants, even he needs to die in order to get it. Maddy Bowen is a die-hard journalist who wants to help people yet is incapable of doing so without factual proof. She plays the role of the referee between Archer and Solomon, but she is not a perfect mediator, because she does not understand each man’s backstory. The film is careful in crafting the character in such a way that Maddie Bowen herself, regardless of her American background, stereotypes the people in the Sierra Leone conflict. Only when she is involved with Solomon and Danny in an extremely close relationship is she able to discern the motivations that fuel each man’s actions. Solomon’s story is the overarching story, since it brings everyone together. It serves not only as a canopy for the other characters’ narrative but also presents the most explicit biblical theme. At one point in the film, Solomon discovers that shortly after his own capture, his son was taken by the rebels. Now, when a kid is kidnapped by the rebels, he is indoctrinated, taught to kill, drugged, and turned into a soulless fanatic. At the beginning of his capture, Solomon’s son does not like to be with the rebels. Yet, a few scenes later, we see him getting drugged while other boys around him smoke and have a great time. Solomon’s son accepts the new lifestyle and forgets about his family. Solomon has already found his wife and daughters, but when he learns that his son is gone (and realizing where he is) he is devastated, and thus the search for the diamond for him becomes the search for his son. At one point, Archer pulls a gun on Solomon when the latter wants to infiltrate the rebel camp to look for his son. Archer is afraid that Solomon will blow their operation to recover the diamond and doesn’t understand the love of a family. Solomon confronts the armed Archer and says, “He is my son. I am his father. I must go find him. Go ahead, shoot me if you want, but I will go find him.” In a sense, Solomon’s story is similar to Taken’s theme about a father that loves his children so much that he won’t let them go astray, and when they do, he goes and drags them from their sin back into the light. When Solomon finds his son, his son is so indoctrinated that he aims gun at him. In one of the most heart-wrenching scenes of the whole movie, Solomon reminds his son of what he was before he was taken by the rebels. With tears in his eyes, Solomon says, “I am your father who loves you. And you will come home with me to be my son, again.” The story also draws from the parable of The Prodigal Son, about a son who becomes a son “again” after the bad things that he has done. After Solomon and his son are reunited, they run with Archer towards a landing strip where a small airplane is going to pick them of and take them to safety, away from the mercenaries who are trying to take the diamond from them. Archer is shot and, due to his witnessing of Solomon’s confrontation with his son, he changes from the man who would rather die with the diamond in his hand than live while someone else enjoys the profit to the man who understands his futile life.  Archer has just been betrayed by Colonel Coetzee, he is dying, and he has 2, 000 British pounds in his pocket in the form of a stone. He realizes that, if he continues in his greed, Solomon, his son, and he will die. Therefore, he gives the diamond to Solomon and his son and allows them to escape while he holds of the mercenaries and says goodbye to Maddy on a SatPhone. Eventually, Solomon and Maddy meet in London and unravel the illegal diamond trade of a renowned diamond company for whom Archer worked, thanks to some notes with factual proof that Archer gave to Maddy before.

The film does not acknowledge the sinful nature of man, and thus the narrative is slightly away from presenting a complete Christian worldview. At some point, a schoolmaster who has a secret home for ex-rebel children, says that people are just people. “It is what they do that makes them good or bad. A moment of love, even in a bad man, can give meaning to a life. None of us knows whose path will lead us to God.” This, of course, is not true. Even one sin is enough to send a man to hell. Yet, even with this claims, the film still presents a great argument about how men, no matter how sinful they might be, can be redeemed and about how God will drag those whom he calls away from sin, even if they don’t want to. Also, through Maddy Bowen, the film provides a criticism of the illegal diamond trade that still happens in the African continent.

Gritty, gruesome, brutal, and cold. That’s is how this film presents reality in many of its scenes. Yet, that is also how an unredeemed sinner’s heart is. In order to present a powerful redemption, there has to be something hellishly bad to be redeemed from, yet this film does not stop in the shocking or violent but provides an equally shocking narrative of redemption that is true in most of its elements.

           

Read More

The Patriot (2000)

The Patriot (2000)
by Eric Maus

"Before they were soldiers, they were family. Before they were legends, they were heroes. Before there was a nation, there was a fight for freedom."

   Ronald Emmerich's The Patriot (rated R for war violence) is a masterful work of cinema. A fictional story of America's Revolution, this film is about the birth of the United States of America, but still offers many beneficial lessons to the Americans of today.

   Set in Colonial America, Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), a veteran of the French and Indian War, lives with his children on a plantation in South Carolina. Haunted by his past, he wants nothing more than to lead a peaceful life, and wants nothing to do with war, despite the impending revolution against England. His eldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger), however, enlists in the regulars, much to the disappointment of his father. After a sadistic British colonel named William Travington comes to Benjamin's plantation, murders his son Thomas, and burns down his house, Benjamin realizes he must take action against the tyrannical British, for the sake of his family and neighbors. Joined by Gabriel and a ragtag band of warriors, Benjamin sets out to attain freedom for the nation he loves.

  This movie does a magnificent job of recreating the Revolutionary War era, giving us a marvelous depiction of America before her independence from Britain. We feel as though we live with these brave men and boys of old, the ones who died to free their families and their country from tyranny. The cinematography is masterful, throwing us in the midst of the great battles, while the dialogue and behavior of the characters well represents the mannerisms of those who lived in the 18th century. The musical score by the great John Williams is beautiful, but at the same time haunting, giving a very unique feel to this movie.

   As far as acting goes, this movie hosts an amazing range of terrific actors. Mel Gibson stars as our protagonist, and brings the character of Benjamin Martin to life; we feel his pain, anger, and courage. For an actor with a myriad of very different roles, I believe this is Mel Gibson's best performance yet. The late Heath Ledger, who never seemed able to disappoint, also does a superb job, and British actor Tom Wilkinson plays General Cornwallis, and does equally well.

   If it's true that a story is only as good as it's villain, this movie definitely understands that concept. Known for his brutal ways, Colonel William Travington, played by Jason Isaacs, will stop at nothing to destroy the rebelling Americans, and has a special agenda against Benjamin Martin. He burns, pillages, murders, and does it all with an eerie, determined grin plastered to his face. His character is pure evil, and he definitely deserves a high-ranking position in the greatest movie villains of all time.

   One of my favorite things about The Patriot is the character of the Reverend Oliver. In the majority of modern films, pastors are never presented as the good guys. They are always money-grubbing swindlers, caring about nothing except for the expansion of their church grounds. Unfortunately, this is because many modern pastors are in actuality like that, but in The Patriot, the pastor is one of the bravest and most respectable characters. As many members of his congregation are leaving to fight for their independence, Rev. Oliver removes his clerical wig, picks up a musket, and says, "A shepherd must tend his flock. And at times...fight off the wolves." He isn't afraid to get his hands dirty, or to stand up against evil.

   Towards the beginning of the film, Benjamin Martin takes part in a council dedicated to deciding whether South Carolina will join the revolution. Martin stands and gives his opinion, "Am I angry about taxation without representation? Well, yes I am. Should the American colonies govern themselves independently? I believe that they can, and they should. But if you are asking me, am I willing to go to war with England? Well, then the answer is most definitely no." He is willing to condemn the wrongs England is committing, but he is not willing to take action, to do something about it. After his son Thomas is murdered, Martin, with the help of his two youngest sons Nathan and Samuel, follow and kill the brigade of British soldiers. Afterwards, while Martin sits contemplating his deeds, his sister-in-law says to him, "You have done nothing for which you should be ashamed." Martin replies, "I have done nothing, and for that I am ashamed." He realizes his previous unwillingness to stand against the British has caused tragedy. Most Americans today could really benefit from this lesson. We are more than willing to judge others, to point out the flaws of our government, and all the while we sit back and do nothing to help. A lack of pro-activity is strangling our country. It's time to get off the couch.

   While this movie may take small liberties as to the actual events of the Revolutionary War, it is still a terrific account of the price paid for liberty, a story that holds the same morals those men believed in. See this movie. You will not regret it.

Read More

Green Hornet (2011)

 The Green Hornet (2011)

by Justin Hawes

“I was born in Shanghai. You know Shanghai?”

“Yeah, I love Japan.” 

   The Green Hornet is not a very complex movie. It is, however, a hilarious movie with some ridiculously legit fight scenes. The Green Hornet is not a very deep movie, either. But it doesn’t try to be. If you watch it with the expectation that this movie will change your life, you’d be wrong. But if you watch this movie expecting extreme hilarity and some of the coolest fights you’ve ever seen, you won’t be disappointed. This movie accomplishes all it sets out to do, and that’s good.

   It all starts when Britt Reid (played excellently by Seth Rogen) decides to become a super-hero with his father’s mechanic, Kato (played by Jay Chou). Let me get this straight right away… Kato completely owns; there is no stopping him. He’s like a freaking Terminator. Britt Reid, on the other hand, is a complete wimp. Some of the only times he actually gets to actually punch anyone is if they’re being distracted by Kato in some way. It’s kind of sad, but his suit is awesome and he’s got a gas gun, so it’s all good.

   I loved the dialog. It was an almost perfect mix of comedic timing and Britt Reid’s utter stupidity. The scene where he shoots Kato with the gas gun? Priceless comedy gold. But even though this movie is completely hilarious, and it’s never all that transparent, they swear way too much, and there are a lot of sexual references, so I wouldn’t let a kid watch this. This is not a family movie; you have been warned.

   The cinematography for the fight scenes was brilliant, and so was the choreography. Supreme martial arts, dude. Kato has some serious skills. He has this thing where when his heart rate reaches a certain level, his reflexes go super fast and everything slows down, it’s awesome.

   Basically, see this movie if you can, just don’t expect Inception or The Dark Knight. It’s not that kind of movie. It’s a watch people get owned by Kato movie.

Read More

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

by Eric Maus

"You have returned for a reason. Your adventure begins now."

  This movie disappointed me. Although I wasn't expecting much out of it, since Disney dropped the ball and let others pick up the pieces, I had still thought there might be some hope left, since the book was so good. Sadly, this was far from the case.

   Lucy and Edmund get called back to Narnia once again, although this time, their annoying cousin Eustace Clarence Scrubb happens to come with them. They meet Caspian, who is a few years older and now king of Narnia, on the ship Dawn Treader. It seems Caspian is on a voyage to seek out seven missing lords, who vanished many years before. However, a mysterious green mist that stirs up evil emotions inside the heart seems to be abducting people from many different islands. Caspian and the rest, hoping this somehow links to the missing lords, give chase to the mist, hoping to destroy it before it takes hold of Narnia.

   Unlike the two previous films, the CG and general appearance of this film was nothing spectacular. Actually, it seems as time within the film progresses, the budget must have gotten lower and lower, as the visual effects and cinematography get weaker and weaker, until we reach the finale with the sea serpent, which is just horrible. It looks like a demented child's bath toy. The acting, too, isn't all that swell. Although Ben Barnes finally stopped with that horrible Spanish accent, and Simon Pegg is great as Reepicheep, the rest of the acting, especially Georgie Henley and Skandar Keynes, who were so good in the first films, seems uncontrolled and forced. It makes it hard to watch.

   The only good that came from the movie was Eustace. Will Poulter does a great job of portraying the annoying jerk that Eustace is. He seems very comfortable in the role, and he's funny too. I'm glad to be able to compliment something that came out of this.

   The plot is just messy. Lucy is presented as jealous of every other girl she meets; I guess they were trying to make a character flaw based on the scene from the book with the wizard's spells. However, this flaw is never resolved; we're left hanging with a jealous Lucy. Also, the redemption of Eustace, an amazing portion of Lewis's story, is rushed, not really convincing us. Last but definitely not least, the green mist. It was cheesy at best, and we're never intimidated, only amused and annoyed. Honestly, I was more impressed with BBC's version.

   Is there any hope for the next Narnia film, if anyone decides to pull it off? I doubt it. Unfortunately, since Voyage was nothing but a sunken ship, I'm not sure if anyone will risk it. But we can always hope.

Read More

Collateral (2004)

Collateral (2004)
by Corey Poff

“Since when was any of this negotiable?”

When it comes to crime thrillers, Michael Mann's Collateral (rated R for violence and language) is indisputably a must-see. Why? Because by the time the end credits hit, you will have experienced a white-knuckle ride that actually has something thoughtful to say.

Max Durocher (Jamie Foxx) is a seasoned L.A. cab driver who reluctantly agrees to chauffeur a man by the name of Vincent (Tom Cruise) around for the entire evening. Max soon figures out this unusual customer is on an even more unusual errand: he's a contract killer planning to eliminate five people in a 10 hour spree. Held hostage and forced to shuttle Vincent in-between hits, Max quickly becomes a prime suspect in the killings. With the clock ticking, he must find a way to save himself as well as Vincent's final victim. 

It's hard for me to look at this film as anything less than a work of art. For while the premise itself is not anything especially new or original, Mann's execution of it is flawless. He takes it, makes it his own, and delivers a masterfully-crafted piece of cinema. To quote Peter Travers, “No crime film in years boasts a cooler vibe than Michael Mann's dazzling Collateral.”

Plotting is especially crucial to a movie like this. Rush things, and the audience will wind up confused and dissatisfied. Drag things out too much, and the audience will lose interest. Fortunately, like the seasoned director he is, Mann steers well clear of these two extremes.

Far from being bored or confused, we're drawn in from the beginning and gripped till the final frame. Tension is built methodically until our heart rate matches that of Max, beat for beat. And while I realize the phrase “edge of your seat” is painfully overused these days, the relentless suspense really did put me on the edge of mine.  I began watching in a reclined position. About 20 minutes in, I was leaning forward on the edge of the couch, enthralled. 

The screenplay - written by Australian Stuart Beattie – is a unique and downright stellar piece of work, alternately delivering thoughtful character studies and raw, refreshingly crisp bursts of action. Equally good are the visuals: cinematographer Dion Beebe (also Australian) brings night-time L.A. to vivid life, making it almost as much a character as Max or Vincent.

Added to these superb elements are the performances of the two leads. Foxx – who garnered an Oscar-nomination for his trouble – brings both subtlety and power to his role as Max. Cruise, despite his “good guy” persona, is amazingly compelling as the film's sociopathic antagonist. He doesn't just play the part of Vincent; he owns it. Completely.

Great aesthetics aside, Collateral also leaves the viewer with a good deal to think about, primarily through the characters of Max and Vincent.

Vincent is a chilling example of a perfectly consistent atheist. After ruthlessly gunning down multiple people during a bloody nightclub shootout, he tells Max, “Get with it. Millions of galaxies of hundreds of millions of stars, in a speck on one in a blink. That's us, lost in space... Who notices?”

God notices, of course. But Vincent's worldview rejects God, and consequently, an objective moral standard. And without an objective moral standard, anything goes – even murder.

Then we have Max, a man with big dreams but very little to show for it. He tells customers that  driving a cab is  “only temporary” even though he's been doing it year after year after year. Instead of  working to achieve his larger goals, he's content to let things stay as they are. He doesn't want the risk.

During a heated argument, Vincent draws attention to the pointlessness of this “someday” mentality. “Someday?” he scoffs. “Someday my dream will come? One night you will wake up and discover it never happened... Didn't happen, and it never will, because you were never going to do it anyway. You'll push it into memory and then zone out in your barco lounger, being hypnotized by daytime TV for the rest of your life... What the **** are you still doing driving a cab?”

It's a sharp question, and it jars Max in the midst of his apathy. Ultimately, he realizes his folly, steps up to the plate, and takes action, risking everything he has to save another person's life. Talk about a change of heart.

It would be well nigh impossible to cover all this film has to offer in a single review, so I won't even try. The best thing you can do is to go and see Collateral for yourself - preferably more than once. It's a rough and often violent ride, but it's also a rewarding one; one that will spark plenty of intelligent discussion long after it's over.

Read More

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

by Eric Maus

"We've anxiously awaited your return, my liege."

   After the huge hit that was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, everyone expected a lot from its sequel, Prince Caspian. Did it live up to our expectations? Not exactly.

  Many a year has passed in Narnia, while only a few have transpired over in England. The Pevensies long to return to the magical world, and their wish is granted when they are whisked away from a train station. The Narnia they find themselves in is certainly not the one they remember ruling. Ruins are everywhere, and the magical beasts that were once living in abundance have vanished. In their place, foreign Telmarines populate the realm, under the rule of the Lord Protector, Miraz. When the rightful heir to the throne, Caspian the X, is nearly murdered, he flees for his life, and meets the Pevensies, and the scattered remains of the creatures of old, come out of hiding to once again fight for Narnia's freedom.

  This movie, also directed by Andrew Adamson, is on equal terms with its predecessor in the technical area; we are once again given the beautiful world of Narnia in all its glory. The cinematography, soundtrack, etc., are all great. The acting was also great. The four Pevensies again are all very well represented, as is Aslan. Spanish actor Sergio Castellitto as Miraz was just awesome; he was absolutely the best for that role. Peter Dinklage plays the dwarf Trumpkin, and does a great job, as he is known to do. However, Ben Barnes, who plays Prince Caspian, absolutely cannot pull off a Spanish accent. He tries and fails miserably.

   One good aspect of this movie was Reepicheep the mouse. Played by British Comedian Eddie Izzard, Reepicheep pretty much is one of the only staples that hold this film together. He's witty, brave, and undaunting. His prowess in battle is unmatched, as is his silver tongue (he's pretty much the only character with decent dialogue) But his greatest feature is his undying loyalty to Aslan. I think C.S. Lewis would have been proud of his portrayal.

  Well, we all know that the book Prince Caspian isn't good material for a cinematic experience. BBC tried...and failed miserably. Disney tried here...and didn't do much better. To make up for lack of good movie story material, they tried to come up with subplots to keep the primary storyline flowing. First, they came up with a clichéd match for the superior position between Caspain and Peter. This doesn't go anywhere, since everyone already knows Caspian gets the throne, and Peter never comes back to Narnia. Second, they also came up with a lame 'crush/relationship' thing between Susan and Caspian. Didn't anyone tell these guys that Caspian gets a girl in the next book? Maybe it's part of a plan they've hatched to explain in the future why Susan doesn't come back to Narnia. The jilted lover syndrome. I don't know. The final issue lies with Aslan. Again, we're not given an accurate depiction, but this time it's even worse. Aslan is just a big cat that sits around and smiles at everyone. The only hint that he kinda sorta could be ferocious is that he roars a couple times. Looks like he's gotten the modern church's view of God slapped onto him.

   Ok, the only way you can possibly enjoy this movie is to forget that it was ever based on a book. If you do that, grab some popcorn and you'll get a few laughs and enjoy the battle sequences. But if you can't, then don't even try. You'll just be disappointed.

Read More

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005)

The chronicles of narnia: the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (2005)

by Eric Maus

"Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written."

   As a ten-year-old kid, when I found out that the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis were to be adapted to fit the silver screen, I was ecstatic. Nothing sounded better to me. We were finally going to be given something that would trump the previous pitiful attempts by BBC. And I will honestly say, I was very pleased with what Disney accomplished.

   1940's England. The Luftwaffe is constantly bombing London, and the four Pevensie children are sent out to the countryside to live with an eccentric old professor on his magnificent estate. Lucy, the youngest, discovers a large wardrobe in an empty room. She enters and finds herself in the magical world of Narnia. She meets a faun, who tells her how an evil sorceress, the White Witch, has cast a spell over the land, making it always winter. The witch controls Narnia with an iron thumb, turning all who oppose her into stone. Eventually, all four children find themselves in Narnia, and, with the help of the great lion Aslan, assist the good creatures in the battle to free Narnia forever.

  From a visual perspective, this movie did a magnificent job transferring the book onto the screen. With the help of terrific CG and WetaWorkshop, the world of Narnia comes to life. Massive ice mountains, beautiful glassy seas, snowy forests, and great castles, with fauns, Minotaurs, boggles, griffons, and talking animal to populate them. The cinematography is great, and the soundtrack by Harry Gregson-Williams is also good, really adding to the feel of the movie. A great range of actors take up roles here, and they all do very well. James McAvoy does a brilliant job as Mr. Tumnus the Faun, while the voice of Liam Neeson adds the sense of majesty required for Aslan. Ray Winstone is the voice of Mr. Beaver, and is just great. Of the four Pevensies, Georgie Henley, who plays Lucy, wins the prize: she is stellar, especially for someone so young. Adherence to the book, as previously mentioned, was also handled very well. They didn't trade out the beautiful story C.S. Lewis crafted for something more modern; the allegory of Christ's death and resurrection is definitely not subtle in this film. This movie really captures the magic of the book. Kudos to director Andrew Adamson.

   Ok, I do, however, think this film had a few rough points. First of all, the White Witch. While still a great actress, Tilda Swinton was just not mean enough. The antagonist of Lewis's book was just pure evil, the devil incarnate. Tilda Swinton did a great job with what she was given, but she's definitely not the choice I would have made. Second, the film makes it all about the kids; it's their story. Aslan comes because of them. In the book, it's the other way around. The kids are brought to Narnia because of the arrival of Aslan. I wish this could have been preserved. Our lives are God's story, not ours. Lastly, although they definitely captured the magnificence and grace of Aslan, he's just too tame, and that's the biggest issue. Remember what Mr. Beaver says to the kids (in the book), "He's not a tame lion." Well, the lion in this film is pretty tame. A more unpredictable and wild Aslan would have been preferable.

    All right, I've made my complaints. I believe if these things had been achieved the right way, we would've had a better movie. That said, I still think this is a good movie, and it far outshines most other book adaptations. (And the fox is awesome. Just sayin'.)

Read More

The King's Speech (2010)

The King’s Speech (2010)

by Santiago Pliego

“Because the nation believes that when I speak, I speak for them. But I can't speak.”

Motivational films are usually pretty terrible. A miserable, poor protagonist shows the audience that his life stinks, that everything he does is fruitless, and that nobody likes him. The catch in these films is that most of the time all this horrible things happen to the protagonist when he doesn’t deserve them (at least, that’s the argument that is presented). If he is so smart, why is he not appreciated? If he is strong, why does nobody hire him to do a difficult job? Eventually, after some cliché-laden plot twists (if they can even be called that, since you knew the ending of the film ever since you watched the trailer) the protagonist is noticed, his potential is identified, and he is finally given the opportunity that he deserves. The theme in these films is that he deserved it all along, but he just wasn’t given the opportunity.

   Then, along came The King’s Speech, a 2010 British film directed by Tom Hooper, which is the story of King George VI (1895-1952) and his struggle with a severe stammering problem that affects every aspect of his royal life. Before he becomes king, Prince Albert, the Duke of York (Colin Firth), is just another member of the royal family. After a disastrous attempt to deliver a speech in the 1925 British Empire Exhibition, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks the help of various speech therapists and doctors to cure Bertie, as she affectionally calls her husband, of his speech impediment. After several unsuccessful experiences, Elizabeth recruits Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian actor—not a doctor with formal training, as the others—who imparts classes of elocution and is sure that he can cure Prince Albert’s problem. Lionel, however, states that the Prince must stick to his rules, or as he puts it, “my game, my turf, my rules.” The first thing that Lionel establishes is that for the treatment to work, the Prince and he must be equals. The formalities are thrown out the window and Lionel begins to address the soon-to-be-king as Bertie, which of course, the Prince does not like at the beginning. After many sessions, Bertie starts to improve his confidence and speech abilities, until he has to take the crown. His father, King George V, dies and leaves Bertie’s older brother David (Guy Pearce) as his rightful successor. David, however, is an irresponsible, Hitler-sympathizer, debauching man who wants to marry Wallis Simpson (Eve Best), a double-divorcee American woman whose possible marriage with David goes against the British law/religious view that a monarch may not marry a divorced woman. Thus, David steps down and Bertie is thrust into the spotlight in the worse time of all, when the foreboding shadow of WWII is growing. This brings back Bertie’s impediment and he requires more support from Lionel, because he knows that being king means representing the voice of the country, and yet he has no voice.

   The quality of the film is outstanding. All the actors deliver realistic, believable performances, but Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, and Geoffrey Rush’s presentation of their characters is impeccable. Firth’s impersonation of a stuttering man is superb, and his bodily expressions fit the character and situations perfectly. Even though the film spans several decades, the result is a clear narrative and an easy-to-follow plotline, common in motivational movies. The soundtrack accompanies the scenes perfectly albeit not often, yet what could have been gaps without auditory elements are covered by the vigorous dialogue and language choice. The element that caught my attention the most was the cinematography, which, contrary to the usual “point and shoot” method, actually does serve to enhance the story and even say things about situations or characters. The use of wide-angle shots in an enclosed space when Lionel and Bertie are training in Lionel’s apartment makes the scenes more goofy and amusing to watch, exemplifying the state of bizarreness that Bertie is experiencing. As Bertie’s speech impediment lessens, the shots and the mise-en-scène become more open and less compressed, giving off a sense of freedom. Lionel’s apartment, an awfully tight and small place for consultation, becomes the staging area for Bertie’s exercises, which involve moving around quickly and forcefully; movements which attempt to break free, as it were, from the oppression of the walls around them. The motif of compression is present in the use of tight hallways and enclosed, claustrophobic photography. The opening scene is probably one of the best photographed introductory scenes I have seen. The whole beginning is great, but when the Duke of York walks toward the microphone to speak at the 1925 British Empire Exhibition, the camera puts us in a poignant, terrifying first-person perspective of how Bertie looks at the microphone, at the people, at the “red, evil eye” flashing light that initiates the broadcast, and finally, after a moment of seemingly eternal discomfort, the camera “leaves” Bertie’s mind and we see him in a medium shot. Another excellent use of active cinematography is one scene when Bertie has to give an announcement and his advisers and other members of the royal troupe are looking at him. By utilizing a fisheye lense and a low-angle position, the film makes the audience feel the way Bertie feels: as a dwarf, looked upon by massive figures that oppress him and demand a verbal performance. The scene is so uncomfortable that I found myself hoping that the shot would change quickly, but at the same time I was delighted to find a film that actually utilizes cinematography and mise-en-scène to contribute to the story. A particular scene caused much uproar even in conventional, non-Christian film circles because it made the MPAA give the film an R rating based on “strong language.” The scene, however, is perhaps the best example for the correct usage of strong language in film, based on the intent, depiction, consequences, and context. Just as the cinematography, the use of strong language in that specific scene is not mindless but very thoughtful and does advance the story.

   This is a motivational story, but what sets it apart from other cheesy motivational movies is the journey of the protagonist. In The King’s Speech, the protagonist is neither poor, nor intelligent, nor strong, nor powerful. As Bertie’s father puts it, they [the royal family] have been “reduced to those lowest, basest of all creatures, we've become actors!” In other words, they are only there for show. Bertie’s impediment, however, does not even allow him to “give his dialogue lines”, as it were, to the people of Britain. Understandably, his stuttering also affects his character, and he is a very ill-tempered person, especially with the people who try to help him. Whenever he is with a new doctor, he quickly disregards the doctor’s expertise and loses hope after only five minutes into the treatment. The first sub-theme of the film, therefore, is best explained by a quote by Winston Churchill (who incidentally, makes an appearance in the film): “Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.” What Churchill is saying and the film argues is that strength and intelligence are not the ultimate potential of a person—that they are only means to an end.  While most motivational films end there, The King’s Speech continues even further and presents us with a second sub-theme of responsibility. When David becomes the heir to the throne, he uses his newly-acquired position to throw big parties, get the best wine for his fiancée, and destroy the forests of ancient Scottish castles.  He, who is perfectly capable of uttering every syllable of any word without hindrance, is unable to face the responsibility of being king and facing his duties. Bertie, on the other hand, grieves that his brother handed him the crown (especially at the fragile time before WWII), and yet faces his duties and works to improve his ability to cope with them; he doesn’t wait for them to adapt, he tackles them first. In most motivational films, the protagonist suddenly gets handed a chance, is met by doors that were opened for him, and eventually, most of his success is in part founded on good connections with the right people. The cure for Bertie’s problem, however, is not going to be handed to him; he must fight for it, with tears and cries of agony. Shouldn’t he be able to have everything, because he is the king? Doesn’t he deserve it? No. A common man, in this sense, is luckier than King of England himself, because he is able to efficiently use speech, a basic human quality, while the king cannot. The third sub-theme of film is about growing up. Bertie remembers that his nanny used to pinch him and mistreat him because he stuttered, and the repercussions of such harsh handling still affect him as an adult. Lionel, however, states that “You don’t need to be afraid of things you were afraid of when you were five.” This theme and the previous two are all interrelated, so in order for Bertie to deal with his problems, he has to grow up and face his responsibilities by applying continuous effort.

   If these are all sub-themes, what is the overarching theme of the story? Before I answer the question, first we need to analyze the way Bertie’s problem is presented. His deficiency is not only physical, but rather, it has extended and developed into unhappiness, a hot-temper, and misunderstanding of his duties. Even when he is able to record his voice without a single stutter, Bertie is unhappy. He’s finally listening to his voice in continuity, yet he yells “hopeless, hopeless!” and storms out of Lionel’s office. And hence comes the overarching theme: a complete change or digression from a complete problem (a problem that consumes the person as a whole) cannot begin in the outside, even if the problem is only evident externally. In order for Bertie to stop his physical flaw, he must change his inward flaws. That is why Lionel refers to him as “Bertie” instead of “Your Royal Highness, sir”. That is why Lionel doesn’t allow Bertie, the Duke and later King of England, to boss him around. That is why Lionel must first get personal with Bertie and befriend him, because only by changing the man behind the words are the words going to come out just right.

   Ultimately, this film is compatible with the Christian worldview, at least for the most part. Unfortunately, since this film is a motivational film—even if it’s a masterfully well made and original motivational film—it can be quite humanistic at certain points. However, the overarching theme of the story leaves us with a good insight about the human condition and about its extension and degradation of other areas of life that may be seemingly unrelated the original problem, and tells us that the condition must be changed before anything else in a person’s life is transformed

Read More

The Happening (2008)

The Happening (2008)

by Eric Maus

(this review contains spoilers)

"What kind of terrorists are these?"

   The Happening. It's a good title. It peaks our interest, and evokes both curiosity and dread. The poster does the same. Since he was the guy who gave us Signs and The Sixth Sense, I thought M. Night Shyamalan had another good movie headed our way. Remember, this was before The Last Airbender. Well, Shyamalan definitely surprised us with this film...just not in a good way.

   It begins in Central Park. The wind blows. Everyone freezes. Suddenly, a woman stabs herself with a metal hairpin. Construction workers begin leaping from high rises. A police officer shoots himself.  A taxi driver picks up the gun and does the same. People all over New England begin killing themselves, for no apparent reason. Why is this happening? That's what high school teacher Elliot Moore and his wife Alma are trying to figure out, as they flee the quickly spreading virus as fast as they can. As everyone around them commits suicide one by one, they begin to wonder if escape is still an option.

  The Happening (rated R for violence and disturbing images) was pretty well made. The plot does exactly what a thriller should; it keeps us guessing, and in turn proves us wrong, over and over again. The acting is also very good; Mark Wahlberg stars as Elliot and Zooey Deschanel plays Alma. Another highlight of this film is that it's able to maintain it's very eerie feeling throughout; something many thrillers fail to do. The soundtrack, cinematography, and dialogue all assist in making this a creepy film. Don't get me wrong; it's definitely not a horror picture, but it's still pretty unnerving.

   In his films, specifically his thrillers, M. Night Shyamalan always has a different theme. In The Sixth Sense it was ghosts, in Signs it was aliens, in Devil it was demons, etc. I wondered what the theme/twist was going to be here. What is causing this bizarre virus that turns off the part of our brains that keeps us from hurting ourselves? Is it terrorists with a new bio-chemical weapon? Robots from the future come back to destroy us? Evil warlocks? Or what if all the trees are really mad at us humans for cutting down forests and mowing lawns, and they decide to release a chemical that makes us kill ourselves. Haha, wouldn't that be dumb. Well, guess what? That's exactly what happens. I am not even kidding. In this movie, the plants of our world are angry that we treat them with such disrespect, and so they create and release a disease that results in the deaths of hundreds of humans. At the end of the movie, after the virus seems to have gone away, a scientist comes on the news and announces to the world that this was just a warning, and if we don't shape up in our attitude towards plants, they will kill us all. Of course, everyone just scoffs at him and moves on with their lives as if nothing ever happened. The film closes with a scene in Paris; the wind blows, the trees sway, and everyone freezes again. Oh no, the revenge of the plants is inevitable. Wow. Shyamalan must be trying to get on board with all the other enviro nuts. Is this movie supposed to scare us into buying Hybrids? Preserve this planet or die? Well, this movie seemed to get a lot more laughs than anything else, and am I surprised? Of course not.

   Recommendation? It's simple. Make sure to water all your plants three times a day, give them plenty of sunlight, and tell them you love them every night. No, just kidding. My real recommendation is to spend your time doing something valuable, instead of wasting 90 minutes of your life watching this joke.

Read More

The Last Airbender (2010)

 

The Last Airbender (2010)

by Justin Hawes

"I will stop them!" 
   The Last Airbender is a bad movie. But not only is it a bad movie, it is the worst bad movie I have ever seen. Everything about this movie is bad. The choreography, most of the acting, the dialogue, the pacing, even the worldview is half-baked and emotionless. Well, you might say, he just doesn’t like it because he hates the TV show, and is therefore biased. Au contraire, I liked the show a lot, and I feel like M. Night Shyamalan (if he ever watched it) completely missed the point. Heed me. Please don’t see this movie, ever. And Dev Patel, thank you for being the only part of this movie that didn’t suck.

Read More