Engaging Culture

Dennis Hopper, the screen legend, lost his battle with prostate cancer this morning. I’ve always loved Hopper’s way of taking even the smallest of roles and making them his own. The good folks over at Cinematical have given him a very nice tribute.

I love wasting numerous hours diving into the movie stats heaven that is Box Office Mojo. I get lost as I look for patterns and make predictions. One of the only things I like about sequels is doing this kind of prediction, and for new movies, I can make comparisons to other movies in the same genre. If you are a movie geek like me, check it out and look at the fun things I found out about this weekend’s openings and one from next week.

Shrek Forever After – The saga of that lovable green ogre adds what is its final chapter, and not a moment too soon. Each Shrek film has increased its opening weekend revenues: Shrek (42.3 million), Shrek 2 (108 million), Shrek 3 (121.6 million). I find it hard to believe that Shrek 4 can keep this upward trend in motion. Statistically, Shrek 2 was the peak of the series. It grossed over 120 million more than Shrek 3 despite lower opening weekend numbers. I think most fans of the series were disappointed with the third film and aren’t expecting much from this final installment. Therefore, I predict that it will barely pass the $100 million mark in its opening weekend.

MacGruber – Saturday Night Live is a great TV show. It is filled with current cultural happenings and has endured for 35 seasons and nearly 700 episodes. It has spawned several feature films, but none of them has met with particular success, The Blues Brothers and Wayne’s World are the only ones that have cracked the 50 million mark. Critics have given MacGruber mixed reviews, saying that the film is very crude and feels a bit like it was thrown together with duct tape and paper clips but many conclude that despite it’s shortcomings it is very funny. I think that MacGruber will be the best SNL adaptation of the past decade… Oh, wait, it’s the only one of the past decade besides The Ladies Man.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time – I’m not sure what to think about this movie. I’ve never played the game, and 16th century Persian history doesn’t exactly get my engine revving. However, I want to like this movie. I want it to be the next in a line of successful adventure movies from Disney like National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean, but video game adaptations have never fared well at the box office. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is currently the only one to ever gross more than $100 million. I think that statistic stands to be broken, but I’m afraid it still won’t be as successful as Disney hopes.

Another fun little factoid. Both of the films opening to wide release next week were shot in Morocco. One is supposed to be 16th century Persia and the other is modern day Abu Dhabi, but I guess to our undiscerning Western eyes, all deserts look the same. I had no idea that Morocco was wild about movies but it’s good to know.

I should warn you that this review contains “spoilers.” That is, I have reviewed the film as one might review classic literature, with freedom to describe the plot and ending and relate them to the overall interpretation. If you cannot bear to know the ending and details in advance, I urge you to see the film before reading the review.

Iron Man 2

A few weeks ago, I gave Iron Man 2 a predicted score of 92. After seeing it, I must say that I think I was a bit generous. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the film. I really enjoyed it. The action sequences looked great, the snarky fast-paced dialogue that made the first one great was back, and I loved seeing the integration and development of the Avengers story line. Even the development of the characters old and new that I was worried about was not an issue, they were given plenty of time to build up their histories and motives. My problem was with what they were built up to, in the end it felt a bit too simple. It felt like the whole movie was rotating around Tony’s attitude change. He’s the only character that grows or changes. I expected Tony to sit down at his computer and type out the little moral lesson that he learned like he was Doogie Howser M.D. or something.

The film picks up about 6 months after Tony proclaimed to the world that he was Iron Man. In this time, Stark Industries has ceased providing the government with weapons, opening up to door for Stark’s biggest competitor, Justin Hammer to pick up the profits. I really like Sam Rockwell as an actor, he’s quirky and funny, and I hoped that he would really turn on the charm and go toe to toe with Robert Downey Jr. but he always seemed like a bumbling copycat who was relegated to always be two or three steps behind. I guess I really wanted to see another Obadiah Stane.

Tony is being pressured by a smarmy and highly irritating Senator (Gary Shandling) to turn over the Iron Man suit to the government. But as he says, “I am Iron Man. The suit and I are one. To turn over the Iron Man suit would be to turn over myself.” Tony claims that no one currently has technology to rival his suit. But there is a new villain named Ivan Vanko. He is seeking revenge for his father, Anton, who was betrayed by Tony’s father, Howard. He builds a miniature arc reactor (just like the one that keeps Tony alive) to power the plasma whips that he wields when he ambushes Tony as he drives in the Grand Prix of Monaco. When he is bested by Iron Man (with the help of Happy and Pepper) he is imprisoned, but feels that he accomplished his goal of showing the world that behind that suit is still just a man that bleeds. Hammer gets the message and breaks Vanko out of prison staging his death, and puts him to work making upgrades on a line of military grade mechanized suits that he plans to unveil as a rival to Iron Man. The arrival of “Whiplash” and the revelation that someone is already abusing this Stark technology really puts the pressure on Tony to turn over the suit.

However, as the movie goes on, we realize that these two characters are not the real enemy of the film. They are simply the catalyst for a story arc and a reason for some expensive fight scenes. Unbeknownst to the world and even his close friends, being Iron Man is killing Tony, literally. The paladium core in the arc reactor is poisoning him. Confronted with his mortality and his daddy issues, Tony reverts back to the self-destructive narcissism that we saw at the beginning of the first film. The movie really begins at Tony’s birthday party, where he is wearing the Iron Man suit while getting sloshed and entertaining his many fans by doing a little stand-up comedy and fireworks display. In walks Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes, Tony’s long time friend. He can’t bear to watch Tony make a fool of himself anymore, especially since he used his government connections to stick up for him. He goes downstairs and dons another suit, this one a sleek silver model, reminiscent of the Mark II suit of which his character memorably said in the first film, “Next time, baby.” They proceed to battle, and for a moment we see all the gawkers from the party who have hung around to watch him fight his best friend. Tony unleashes a primal roar at them and we finally see the wheels coming off the tracks, he’s not just an eccentric billionaire, he’s in trouble and he’s battling more than sickness, more than super villains, he’s battling himself.

After summarily trouncing Tony, Rhodey flies off with his suit and brings it to his bosses in the military. His goal is not profit or notariety, but protection, he wants to see the weapon in the most capable hands, and being the patriot that he is, he assumes that to be the United States government. The emotionally and psychologically bruised Tony is in need of someone to coddle him and nurse him back to health. In walks Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury who tells him exactly what the audience has been thinking for the last hour, that Tony is acting like a selfish child and he needs to get his head on straight and stop passively preparing to die and get active about finding a cure. It’s during this chapter that we find out that Scarlett Johannson’s mysterious character is indeed an ally. She has been implanted by S.H.I.E.L.D. in his organization to shadow him. With the help of his father, Tony discovers a way to reverse the poisoning and become stronger than ever. Some people thought that the Avengers story-line was too pronounced in the film, but I think that it is necessary if the Avengers film is going to make any sense. Plus, all of these movies, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and Thor, will help tell the back story of the Avengers so it can roar at full force when it releases on May 4, 2012.

With his new lease on life, Tony discovers a plot to use his technology against him. Hammer has pimped out the War Machine suit with all sorts of weapons and is presenting them at the Stark Expo when Vanko takes over and launches a full assault on Iron Man. The last 15 minutes of the movie are a frenetic action-packed barrage of explosions and CGI machines. The action comes in bursts so as not to overload you. You can fully appreciate every battle individually whether it is Iron Man and War Machine fighting side by side against dozens of Hammer-drones or Agent Romanoff’s Black Widow taking all comers in the hunt to stop Ivan Vanko before it’s too late. I had a great time. I’m ready and eagerly anticipating Marvel’s next offering. This one was about an inch deep, but it was truckloads of fun both in the script and in the visuals. I believe that comic books provide a treasury of source material for films, years from now I think film scholars will see superhero movies the same way we see westerns today. They are the films that form those simple impressions in the minds of our people about right and wrong. And even in a relativistic day like ours, in the end we all want the good guy to win and the bad guy to get his comeuppance. Iron Man 2 doesn’t disappoint on that front and I, for one, hope it never does. I give it a score of 89.

Rating:  

I was born in 1983. The cold war was all but over. I’ve never seen an episode of M.A.S.H, and I’ve always known minivans, McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets, and the Nintendo Entertainment System. David Letterman has always been on Late Night, and I can’t remember a time when FOX was not an available channel on our television. Perhaps the only thing that saved me from the nihilistic attitude stereotypically associated with the “MTV” generation was that my family didn’t have cable when I was growing up, we simply had a 40-foot tall antenna attached to our rural home and we could pick up signals from all the major networks. I remember watching Perfect Strangers, Night Court, Family Matters, Quantum Leap, Full House, and Matlock. I never had the privilege of having Walter Cronkite read the news to me; in fact I don’t ever recall watching television to get the news when I was growing up. We read the newspaper around my house and as soon as Netscape came out with the browser, I was on the internet. Television to me has always been about cheap entertainment, and by cheap I mean in cost and in value. I’ve never been much of a television watcher, always preferring film or the written word.

Network (1976)

So what is it about a film made seven years before I was born and focusing on a topic that doesn’t pertain to me that I find so appealing? That is a hard question to answer. I suppose it has to do with the cultural impact of television. Aldous Huxley said about television, “In the days before machinery men and women who wanted to amuse themselves were compelled, in their humble way, to be artists. Now they sit still and permit professionals to entertain them by the aid of machinery. It is difficult to believe that general artistic culture can flourish in this atmosphere of passivity.” We have become a vegetable garden of people, we do nothing but absorb, hoping to be entertained. However, even a fleeting moment of entertainment only leaves us more hopeless because we have no one to share it with. As T.S. Eliot once said, “It is a medium of entertainment which permits millions of people to listen to the same joke at the same time, and yet remain lonesome.”

Yet, somehow despite the verbosity of Paddy Chayefsky’s brilliant script (I mean no one really talks like they do in this film), and the absurdity of the story, it has proven itself clairvoyant. We live in a world today that very much resembles the imagined world of the film. That is why I would classify Network as a Science Fiction film. It is a comedy and a drama to be sure, but the best Sci-Fi stories take a current trend and play it out to its obvious conclusion. Only a few years after this film’s release, FOX began to steal away ratings from the traditional stations by airing sensational fluff pieces. They became known for their willingness to air anything that would get the ratings regardless of what the censors at the FCC thought.

Network is really a remarkable film, it is not only watchable but compelling. It doesn’t have any computer graphics, no explosions, and no nudity, it is filled with long stretches of talkative monologues. It was made before the computers or the internet took over the world, but the actors made this film wonderful. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, half of those were for acting. It won three acting Oscars (only the second film in history to do so), and Paddy Chayefsky won for his brilliant script. Somehow, Rocky stole the Best Picture and Director categories. It is a film that few people my age have seen or even heard of, but it is a film that is worth every penny a DVD will cost you.

Peter Finch will always be remembered for his role as the “Mad Prophet of the Airwaves”, especially as he told his listeners to get up, stick their heads out their windows and yell, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” He died just a few months before the Academy Awards, and remains the only person to win the Best Actor Oscar posthumously. He delivers his lines with such conviction and passion that you could easily be fooled into thinking that hie has been touched by some spirit that is guiding him towards a truth that he must proclaim to the masses from his own Mt. Sinai inside our televisions. And Faye Dunaway is frenetic and driven as this woman in a man’s world. She is obsessed with nothing more than the ratings numbers. She plays them like the stock market, unconcerned with the content of the show, only whether people will tune in or not. She is probably best known for her role in Mommie Dearest, but I think that this was a far superior role and it is the only one to win her Oscar gold.

If you’ve never seen Network, you owe it to yourself to add it to your Netflix list at the very least, but I would advise buying the DVD, because once you see it, you will want it. It is a classic. It speaks to our human condition, our desire to be spoon-fed and entertained. How many churches have been ruined because their members attend to be entertained week in and week out? Christians should not be like the people in this film. We should not be like so many are today. We can talk about the internet and video games, but it is that simple box that sits so comfortable in our living rooms that sucks the life out of so many of our families and melts our children’s brains to mush. Listen as Howard Beale tells you about the great evils of television in my favorite scene of the film. Warning: There is some language… watch at your own risk!
continue reading »

Ridley Scott brought us Alien and Blade Runner. Brian Helgeland brought Man on Fire and Mystic River from the page to the screen. And Russell Crowe starred in A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, and 3:10 to Yuma. You would think that if these three joined forces, the result would be phenomenal, I mean Helgeland and Crowe worked together on L.A. Confidential, and Scott and Crowe teamed up to create the epic Gladiator. But their forthcoming collaboration, Robin Hood, looks less than stellar to me.

Three years ago when I first heard about this movie, I thought the idea was good. The plan was, as far as anyone on the outside could tell, to tell the story of Robin Hood as if he were some sort of double agent, by day he would be the dutiful Sheriff of Nottingham, just a guy doing his job. But in the shadows, he would be Robin Hood. The movie would be called “Nottingham”, and in it, Robin Hood would battle the excesses of the opulent government by working from the inside to bring it down. Originally, Russell Crowe was slated to play both Robin Hood and the Sheriff which would concur with that plot line. That looked like a good idea for a movie, it was something that I’ve never seen before. But then last February, the story broke that the film would be called simply Robin Hood, the lead character would no longer be the Sheriff, and that Crowe would no longer play the role of the sheriff, but only Robin Hood. Also Scott said that the plan was to give the sheriff a very minimal role, because he’s not the villain, instead the black hat goes on the entire country of France.

At that point I was confused and disappointed and stopped reading the news about new cast members and seemingly a half a dozen rewrites because I was sure that they had relied on their collective past successes and simply taken the easy route to making several million dollars. After all, people will line up to watch this film simply because of the star power. They lost the nerve to bravely do something unique and intelligent, wanting instead to simply sell tickets. After watching all the previews and featurettes and interviews, I can’t even muster enough excitement to put together a good prediction. I’m just expecting two hours of Gladiator in tights. It may be the best most expensive Robin Hood film yet… but it’s still the same old story we’ve seen dozens of times.

You can watch the trailer below if you’d like. Personally, I’m gonna pass on this one, and if I go see anything the week of its release, I’ll probably take my wife to see Letters to Juliet or Iron Man 2 for the second (or third) time. Predicted score: 63
continue reading »

I live in Louisville, Kentucky. And I love this city, but every year thousands of people descend upon the city to watch a bunch of beasts run around a track for two minutes. Most of them have had a few too many mint juleps, and are too drunk by the time the race actually starts to even know what’s going on. I don’t particularly care about the Kentucky Derby, but I’m sure that I’ll be working overtime this weekend covering for people who do. And even though I don’t care about the race, I can’t help but be intrigued by the story of the only horse to ever run the 1 1/4 mile race at Churchill Downs in less than 2 minutes. This is the most famous horse in the world, except maybe Mr. Ed, ESPN gave him the honor of being the 35th greatest athlete in the past century, and now there is a movie telling his wonderful story.

It’s set to hit theaters on October 8th, and it looks like it’s all the movie that Seabiscuit wanted to be. From director Randall Wallace (The Man in the Iron Mask, We Were Soldiers) comes the true story of Penny Chenery (Diane Lane), a modest housewife who agrees to take over her father’s thoroughbred stables despite her lack of horse-racing knowledge. In true underdog fashion, she and her horse, Secretariat, with the help of veteran trainer Lucien Laurin (John Malkovich), manage to navigate the business and the track, culminating in the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years. Check out the trailer below and safely enjoy the derby this weekend.
continue reading »

Most people expect to see movies geared at the feminine coming out on Mother’s Day. Well, unless mom is watching Iron Man 2 like millions of other people on Mother’s Day, she really can’t miss. I already told you about Babies, the new documentary, but now director Rodrigo Garcia (Nine Lives) is coming out with a new film about the unfolding drama of the intersecting lives of three women who are each affected in some way by adoption.

In Mother and Child, a 14 year-old girl has sex, gets pregnant, and gives up her baby for adoption. We meet this woman forty years later in the present day, her name is Karen (Annette Bening), and she is bitter and emotionally closed off having never gotten over giving up her child. She is caring for her dying mother and after mom dies, she is left alone with her guilt and pain. As you might expect, we also meet the daughter that she gave up at 14, her name is Elizabeth (Naomi Watts). She is now a beautiful and successful lawyer. Finally, we meet Lucy (Kerry Washington) who is having trouble conceiving with her husband, and is turning to adoption to help her create the family she desires.

I’m not sure what it is about our society and adoption, it seems like the only time we hear about it is when Madonna or Angelina are pining after third-world babies or an unsatisfied parent sends their adopted son back to an orphanage in Russia. It’s always the sensational, negative, and shocking that gets the story. And while I don’t think that this film is addressing adoption with such prejudice or sensationalism, I don’t think it is giving the full picture of what adoption is really all about. I’m sure that this film will not do well at the box office, but the critics will love it, it gives a handful of female actors a chance to shine in hopes of winning Oscar gold. It will be weepy and filled with all sorts of emotional turmoil, but the one thing I don’t think it will have is insight into what adoption really feels like.

As Christians we are adopted, loved by a Father who cares about us. Adoption is a picture in scripture of redemption, that which is unwanted and useless becoming priceless and filled with worth. That is how we feel being adopted as His sons and daughters. But this movie isn’t about adoption, as much as it circles around that topic, it is about women. It is about the emotions that go along with motherhood. It is about three women who are looking for fulfillment in something that can never satisfy, and their struggle to pull their lives together. Maybe if I had a baby I would be happy, maybe if I knew my real mother everything would be alright, maybe if I could reunite with the baby I gave up in my teenage pregnancy, then I could be fulfilled. It’s all about the mess that we as sinful people make of life and family. It should give us a glimpse of our desperate need for help.
continue reading »

With less than two weeks until this blockbuster makes its debut, I’m super stoked. I’ve been ready to see what returning Director Jon Favreau and Writer Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder) have to offer since the moment I stepped out of the theater on May 1, 2008. It has been 2 years in the making and, if the trailers are any indication, the concerns of some fans about there not being enough action in the first movie have been addressed and conquered. I was pleased with the amount of action in Iron Man, because to me action is only a vehicle of the story, and Iron Man was full of dialogue and a great story. I have no reason to believe that they would throw that very lucrative formula out the window just to satisfy the cravings of a few teenagers who only want to see a movie full of pointless CGI fight scenes. Before I go much further, let’s watch one of the trailers together. If you want to see more, go to TrailerAddict.com for all sorts of interviews, viral videos, tv spots, and teasers.

Click here to watch trailer

So even though Marvel has only released a very basic plot summary, that doesn’t keep fanboys like me from postulating based on what I have been given. First of all, the trailer presents several new faces, so to avoid any confusion, let’s break the characters down. continue reading »

Warning: As you can tell from the title, this post contains censored vulgar language and descriptions of intense and graphic violence. If that’s not your cup of tea, I understand. Read with caution.

Kick-A** is the marriage of a raunchy R-rated comedy like Superbad or American Pie and an ultra-violent Tarantinoesque movie, with a superhero theme thrown in for good measure. It was written and directed by Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake) in collaboration with Mark Millar (Wanted) who was writing the graphic novel at the same time. Kick-A** has received a very mixed response from the community of film critics with a 77 @ Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 @ Metacritic at the time of publication. Roger Ebert gave it two thumbs down and said, “I find “Kick-A**” morally reprehensible.” While Richard Corliss of TIME said, “This is a violent R-rated drama that comments cogently on the impulses — noble, venal or twisted — that lead people to help or hurt others.” However, it’s controversy has not been enough to earn it the ticket sales that many were expecting, with a less than desirable opening weekend of 19.8 million. However, some have suggested that the low numbers combined with a spike in sales of the four-week old How to Train Your Dragon may indicate that large numbers of teens unable to buy tickets for Kick-A** bought tickets for the other with the hopes of sneaking into the theater.

I should warn you that this review contains “spoilers.” That is, I have reviewed the film as one might review classic literature, with freedom to describe the plot and ending and relate them to the overall interpretation. If you cannot bear to know the ending and details in advance, I urge you to see the film before reading the review. Unlike some other Christian reviewers, I don’t keep track of curse words and possible objectionable content. If you are a parent wondering if you should let your teenage kids go see this… don’t. As for adult viewing, the title of the movie is enough to offend many, and the creators were kind enough to release a red-band trailer, if it offends you, then don’t touch the movie. But I have a morbid curiosity for all things cinematic and cultural, so for better or worse, I watched it. If you want/need to read a synopsis there is a good one on Wikipedia.
continue reading »

Rating:  

I had a great time watching “The Lovely Bones” last night, it was a full house. The acting was superb and the imagery of the film was amazing. Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan) is kidnapped and murdered. What would be the tragic end of another movie, is just where the story really begins. The glimpse into the suffering of a family and a community at the loss of one of its children was very well done. I could feel the emotions of the father desperate for answers and the mother on the brink of despair.

The entire story was narrated by the dead Susie. After her murder, she “feels like life is leaving her” and she awakes in a gorgeous setting, “alone in her own perfect world.” We come to find out that she is not in heaven yet, she is in what the film calls, “the in-between.” And her job in this place/state is to forget all about her former life. Until she can leave it behind, she can’t progress to heaven. The place that she found herself in was described as, “not heaven and not the other place but a little bit of both.” The other place could refer to hell or Earth, we are not told which.

In reality, there is no place like that. No place of atonement or forgetting. The Christian has no need to make atonement or forget, Because Jesus has made payment in full and he will wipe every tear from our eyes. This would be an amazing film if Susie found herself face to face with the glory of God (though then the question of her faith would have to be answered since it wasn’t even brought up in the film) and she easily forgot all about the troubles of the world as she was completely fulfilled and made whole, transformed by the love of her Savior. Then the rest of the movie could have been about how the family coped with the loss, revenge, anger, drunkenness, denial, etc.

The most interesting scene of the film, from a social standpoint, was when the villain got his comeuppance. The theater burst into applause and cheers at the vindication, the justice, that they saw on screen. It was proof positive that no one really believes that truth is relative. We may claim to be “tolerant” and not judgmental. But every person in that theater was intolerant of the aberrant behavior of the villain. However if a “good person” were to have a similar fate, people would cry out, “Injustice! Where is God! Why do bad things happen to “good” people?” It takes biblical revelation to know that there are not “good” people. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and salvation is only found in Jesus Christ. Apart from him, we all are bad people who deserve to go to “the other place.”

From a Christian point-of-view, this movie could have shown a crowd of un-believers that justice belongs to God, and life and death are in his hands. They could have seen that there can be hope for life after death. And it could have given caution to those who believe themselves to be “good” people, that salvation is found in no one but Jesus.