This is a much welcomed injection of life into the evolution debate.
This film is a documentary of the blackballing and ostracizing of tenured and respected professors who dare to attempt to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design. Although "documentary" bears a stigma of boredom (as does the name "Ben Stein" who writes, produces, and hosts the film), this movie is very engaging and fun to watch. There is an agenda here which is moved along by clever imagery and editing, but that doesn't bother me. The filmmakers do not try to hide their proclivity, unlike Michael Moore's films which bear the same level of expertise, but attempt to portray themselves as objective.
What I liked:
I appreciated that there is a definite exposure of the lack of objectivity. Intelligent Design proponents are described as "idiots" and "evil" by evolutionists. The ones we meet are actually very articulate and meek for the most part. The emotion involved shatters any false assertion that this is just about science. Something about the possibility of a creator strikes at the core of these evolutionists.
I also was glad to see the discussion about eugenics. I was floored when I learned about the American eugenics program in a class in college. It was just another dirty secret in our history no one seems to want to talk about, but it's worth remembering.
What I didn't like:
I understand the connection between Darwinism and Nazism. I agree that Hitler took Darwin's theories, applied them to his own agenda, and took them to their most evil end. I also believe that whenever someone says "just like the Nazis!" or "just like Hitler!", people stop thinking. It degrades discussion into a shouting match and people start rolling their eyes. I do agree there is a connection, I just think it might be better suited as an entirely separate project.
The climactic "confrontation" at the end also wasn't as exciting as I was expecting it to be. I didn't learn anything new about Richard Dawkins that we didn't learn from the previous interview. I think I would have rather had Ben Stein moderate a debate between Dawkins and whoever his equivalent on the Intellectual Design side would be. There's a real opportunity there to put on display who approaches the debate with presumptions and emotional instability and who come with an open mind and relative clarity.
Still, a great film that already has sparked much discussion... which is really the goal of this movie. Success!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Bullitt (1968)
Steve McQueen. Cool. Same thing, right?
There's a lot of good stuff in this film. I love how McQueen doesn't talk a whole lot in this movie. He speaks with his eyes and with his decisions. McQueen was a master at communicating (or manipulating) with minimal effort. His counterpart in the movie, played by Robert Vaughn, talks more than anyone in the film and comes off looking like a buffoon. No accident there, I'm sure.
The chase scene is the prize jewel that sits in the middle of Bullitt's relentless chase of justice. If you're looking for a Christian ethic in the story, the best one is Bullitt's unwillingness to compromise what is right and wrong. While in the midst of doing his job as a cop to find the truth, he becomes thrown into a political firestorm. Despite the threats of long term repercussions to his career, Bullitt continues to just do his job and find the truth. Even in the thrilling end, he doesn't let outside influences cloud his judgement to do what is right. And he doesn't regret one bit of it. There's much to learn from that kind of mindset.
The same production crew from this film next made "The French Connection" (different director) which is also a great film. The impetus for creating the chase scene in "The French Connection" (widely hailed as the best ever in cinematic history) was that the production crew was determined to top the chase scene they constructed in "Bullitt". They also later put together a rather nail-biting chase in "The Seven Ups", which turned out to be the only reason anyone would watch that movie.
If you're into any kind of police thrillers or action/suspense films, "Bullitt" is required viewing.
There's a lot of good stuff in this film. I love how McQueen doesn't talk a whole lot in this movie. He speaks with his eyes and with his decisions. McQueen was a master at communicating (or manipulating) with minimal effort. His counterpart in the movie, played by Robert Vaughn, talks more than anyone in the film and comes off looking like a buffoon. No accident there, I'm sure.
The chase scene is the prize jewel that sits in the middle of Bullitt's relentless chase of justice. If you're looking for a Christian ethic in the story, the best one is Bullitt's unwillingness to compromise what is right and wrong. While in the midst of doing his job as a cop to find the truth, he becomes thrown into a political firestorm. Despite the threats of long term repercussions to his career, Bullitt continues to just do his job and find the truth. Even in the thrilling end, he doesn't let outside influences cloud his judgement to do what is right. And he doesn't regret one bit of it. There's much to learn from that kind of mindset.
The same production crew from this film next made "The French Connection" (different director) which is also a great film. The impetus for creating the chase scene in "The French Connection" (widely hailed as the best ever in cinematic history) was that the production crew was determined to top the chase scene they constructed in "Bullitt". They also later put together a rather nail-biting chase in "The Seven Ups", which turned out to be the only reason anyone would watch that movie.
If you're into any kind of police thrillers or action/suspense films, "Bullitt" is required viewing.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Nacho Libre (2006)
This was a very entertaining and charming movie, however it left me ultimately confused. The plot follows a Catholic friar moonlighting as a Luchador (Mexican WWF fighter) to support his orphanage.
I have to give credit to Jack Black for not being afraid to flaunt his flab and be a total goof ball for all to see (granted, he is making a ton of money for doing so). It was interesting to see the similarities this had with "Napoleon Dynamite". The Hess duo that wrote and directed both movies are creating a definite style that includes dynamic attention-grabbing shot composition, awkward heroes, and relatively clean content. I especially took note of the large number of shots with one character in center frame. This is not normal for Hollywood and they use it liberally to direct attention. It's unique, but I'm not sure if it will get old in future films. They also have an apparent affinity for "normal" looking people. Especially elderly people who seem to be near infirmity.
What confused me about the film, however, was its approach to spirituality. We seem to be constantly wondering about how seriously the main character, Nacho, takes serving the Lord. The treatment of religion is somewhat muddled. The quintessential example of this is a scene before a fight when Nacho approaches his Atheist partner with the line "I've been thinking... I'm kinda concerned about your salvation and stuff". When I heard this, I was intrigued that a discussion would follow about why this guy should seek God. Even if it was handled a little naively, it would be refreshing and would represent the gospel in mainstream film. I was utterly disappointed (and somewhat offended) when the scene ended with a sneak attack baptism that entailed grabbing a man's head and slamming it into a bowl of water. The gospel essentially became a punch line.
There was much praying, and thankfully prayer was not shown as some kind of 1-800-MIRACLE request line that delivers on demand. There was prayer followed by failure followed by growth and more prayer. This is much like it is in real life as our Lord uses circumstances to mold us on His schedule, not ours.
Like I started off saying though, due to it's sophomoric handling of the religious realm, this movie is entertaining, yet misguided.
I have to give credit to Jack Black for not being afraid to flaunt his flab and be a total goof ball for all to see (granted, he is making a ton of money for doing so). It was interesting to see the similarities this had with "Napoleon Dynamite". The Hess duo that wrote and directed both movies are creating a definite style that includes dynamic attention-grabbing shot composition, awkward heroes, and relatively clean content. I especially took note of the large number of shots with one character in center frame. This is not normal for Hollywood and they use it liberally to direct attention. It's unique, but I'm not sure if it will get old in future films. They also have an apparent affinity for "normal" looking people. Especially elderly people who seem to be near infirmity.
What confused me about the film, however, was its approach to spirituality. We seem to be constantly wondering about how seriously the main character, Nacho, takes serving the Lord. The treatment of religion is somewhat muddled. The quintessential example of this is a scene before a fight when Nacho approaches his Atheist partner with the line "I've been thinking... I'm kinda concerned about your salvation and stuff". When I heard this, I was intrigued that a discussion would follow about why this guy should seek God. Even if it was handled a little naively, it would be refreshing and would represent the gospel in mainstream film. I was utterly disappointed (and somewhat offended) when the scene ended with a sneak attack baptism that entailed grabbing a man's head and slamming it into a bowl of water. The gospel essentially became a punch line.
There was much praying, and thankfully prayer was not shown as some kind of 1-800-MIRACLE request line that delivers on demand. There was prayer followed by failure followed by growth and more prayer. This is much like it is in real life as our Lord uses circumstances to mold us on His schedule, not ours.
Like I started off saying though, due to it's sophomoric handling of the religious realm, this movie is entertaining, yet misguided.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
I Am Legend (2007)
I just watched this movie, and I am still processing what I think about it. I thought writing my thoughts out would help me to articulate.
The Good -
The examination of the truth behind God's statement: "it is not good for man to be alone." Smith's character has varying degrees of dementia as he struggles to save himself and humanity without any human contact. The movie does a great job of showing how lonely solitude would be and just how oblivious we are to the masses around us. It attempts to make some small statement about God and destiny, but ultimately fails because it does it so simplistically and without conviction. It was a nice try though.
The Bad -
I was really worried at the first scenes with Will Smith. It was shamelessly commercial and somewhat silly. I was afraid it would quickly go the way of "Minority Report", but was pleased to eventually find that the movie makers apparently just decided to get all the endorsements out of the way in the first 10 minutes. The CGI was a little too much, as well. In an attempt to make the scary creatures scarier, they are given super abilities via CGI. I really think it would have been scarier if they were simply real people in really good makeup; I found the graphics distracting at times.
Lastly, a note on Will Smith. I like the guy and I like his movies, but I've now noticed a trend with him. He is a really great actor when it comes to becoming engrossed in the story. He is not, however, great at becoming engrossed in the character. He is always Will Smith. In every movie, he does great acting at showing you how Will Smith would act if put in that situation. I would love to see a movie where he takes on a completely different persona (Albert Finney is a great example this). If he can do that, then he deserves the laud that is often thrown his way.
Overall, I liked the movie. A little weak in places, but better than a lot of other films.
The Good -
The examination of the truth behind God's statement: "it is not good for man to be alone." Smith's character has varying degrees of dementia as he struggles to save himself and humanity without any human contact. The movie does a great job of showing how lonely solitude would be and just how oblivious we are to the masses around us. It attempts to make some small statement about God and destiny, but ultimately fails because it does it so simplistically and without conviction. It was a nice try though.
The Bad -
I was really worried at the first scenes with Will Smith. It was shamelessly commercial and somewhat silly. I was afraid it would quickly go the way of "Minority Report", but was pleased to eventually find that the movie makers apparently just decided to get all the endorsements out of the way in the first 10 minutes. The CGI was a little too much, as well. In an attempt to make the scary creatures scarier, they are given super abilities via CGI. I really think it would have been scarier if they were simply real people in really good makeup; I found the graphics distracting at times.
Lastly, a note on Will Smith. I like the guy and I like his movies, but I've now noticed a trend with him. He is a really great actor when it comes to becoming engrossed in the story. He is not, however, great at becoming engrossed in the character. He is always Will Smith. In every movie, he does great acting at showing you how Will Smith would act if put in that situation. I would love to see a movie where he takes on a completely different persona (Albert Finney is a great example this). If he can do that, then he deserves the laud that is often thrown his way.
Overall, I liked the movie. A little weak in places, but better than a lot of other films.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Hero (2002)
At this point, I can probably stop saying "this is one of my favorites"... but this is one of my absolute favorite movies.
This movie is immensely rich on many levels, but let me start by saying something about foreign movies since this is the first foreign film I'm writing about. If you are a real movie buff, you probably don't have a problem with foreign movies. If you just really enjoy watching movies, you may avoid them since you don't like... subtitles (boo! hiss!).
A couple points:
1) It is arrogant to think that the only films worth watching happened to have been made in the United States (has anyone seen the 1998 version of "Godzilla"?)
2) To rule out an entire body of work produced by the other 80% of the world cheats you out of some wonderful direction, acting and cinematography.
3) Foreign films can often give you a perspective you would never get from a Hollywood movie.
Enough said. This movie is great, and I will make two points about it. First, it is remarkably beautiful. Director Zhang Yimou creates scenes that are completely dominated by one color or another, yet become stunning instead of boring. The colors are lush and engrossing where one might expect them to be distracting. It is stellar composition and cinematography.
Secondly, the movie understands itself. What I mean by that is everything in the movie points towards the moral it is trying to present. That there are things in life worth killing for and things worth dying for, and that many times these passions intersect. The way this all comes together in the end is beautiful and thought provoking. Many movies are wonderful throughout, yet fail in the final 15 minutes, leaving a sour taste in your mouth, but this movie ends exactly the way it should. I makes you wonder what drives you in your life and what you are willing to risk to advance towards that goal.
This movie is immensely rich on many levels, but let me start by saying something about foreign movies since this is the first foreign film I'm writing about. If you are a real movie buff, you probably don't have a problem with foreign movies. If you just really enjoy watching movies, you may avoid them since you don't like... subtitles (boo! hiss!).
A couple points:
1) It is arrogant to think that the only films worth watching happened to have been made in the United States (has anyone seen the 1998 version of "Godzilla"?)
2) To rule out an entire body of work produced by the other 80% of the world cheats you out of some wonderful direction, acting and cinematography.
3) Foreign films can often give you a perspective you would never get from a Hollywood movie.
Enough said. This movie is great, and I will make two points about it. First, it is remarkably beautiful. Director Zhang Yimou creates scenes that are completely dominated by one color or another, yet become stunning instead of boring. The colors are lush and engrossing where one might expect them to be distracting. It is stellar composition and cinematography.
Secondly, the movie understands itself. What I mean by that is everything in the movie points towards the moral it is trying to present. That there are things in life worth killing for and things worth dying for, and that many times these passions intersect. The way this all comes together in the end is beautiful and thought provoking. Many movies are wonderful throughout, yet fail in the final 15 minutes, leaving a sour taste in your mouth, but this movie ends exactly the way it should. I makes you wonder what drives you in your life and what you are willing to risk to advance towards that goal.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Amadeus (1984)
Another all time favorite of mine. This movie excels at a particular aspect of film that really excites me. The director finds a way to put you inside the character and see what it is like to be them for a moment. Other examples (which I will probably write about soon) are Frantic, Chinatown, Regarding Henry, and Memento.
In Amadeus, music obviously plays a vital role. The whole crux of the movie is that Salieri is able to recognize music of unmatched beauty, yet cannot produce it. For him, music is more than a diversion, it is like an extra sense that requires an extra organ to perceive it with. Milos Forman gives us an idea of this in two scenes particularly. The first is when Salieri is observing Mozart's music sheets and is able to call up an orchestra in his mind and revels in the music that is only playing for him. The second is when Salieri and Mozart are working together to compose the final requiem and the as they discuss the piece instrument by instrument we hear the different parts coming together. It really is a masterful scene composition.
The other aspect of the film that is fascinating is Salieri's antagonistic stance towards God. He hates God for giving this great gift of music to such a vulgar creature as Mozart. He vows revenge against God by hurting Mozart however he can. What makes you take notice is how Salieri states it outright. I found it interesting because many people have this same position of not only rejecting God, but hating him... but no one ever articulates it. It's a scary insight into what hatred towards your Creator can turn you into.
In Amadeus, music obviously plays a vital role. The whole crux of the movie is that Salieri is able to recognize music of unmatched beauty, yet cannot produce it. For him, music is more than a diversion, it is like an extra sense that requires an extra organ to perceive it with. Milos Forman gives us an idea of this in two scenes particularly. The first is when Salieri is observing Mozart's music sheets and is able to call up an orchestra in his mind and revels in the music that is only playing for him. The second is when Salieri and Mozart are working together to compose the final requiem and the as they discuss the piece instrument by instrument we hear the different parts coming together. It really is a masterful scene composition.
The other aspect of the film that is fascinating is Salieri's antagonistic stance towards God. He hates God for giving this great gift of music to such a vulgar creature as Mozart. He vows revenge against God by hurting Mozart however he can. What makes you take notice is how Salieri states it outright. I found it interesting because many people have this same position of not only rejecting God, but hating him... but no one ever articulates it. It's a scary insight into what hatred towards your Creator can turn you into.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Snake Eyes (1999)
One of my all time favorites.
In this film, Brian DePalma revisits some of the "experimental" aspects of his film-making that had been somewhat dormant of late (on that note, check out "The Phantom of the Paradise" if you're in the mood for a real trip-fest).
As far as direction and composition, I love what DePalma does with this film. The opening shot is 20 minutes long. Now if you've never examined a typical Hollywood film, this might not mean much to you, but normally a shot that is 1 minute is pretty long by today's standards. This first scene is filmed as an observer watching the main character react to the crucial event. The rest of the movie revisits this event from the perspective of other characters through first-person shots and split screens. It's beautifully done and I don't think the movie got the credit it deserved for this.
Secondly, I appreciate the realization that the main character has when he realizes how he is defined by the world around him. He realizes the persona that is him and decides he wants to change it. As Christians, we can relate as we had to make a similar change in definition of self when we became children of God. I also appreciate that the end of the film shows that such decisions are not filled with ease and happy endings.
It's a great movie and one of the few I never tire of watching.
In this film, Brian DePalma revisits some of the "experimental" aspects of his film-making that had been somewhat dormant of late (on that note, check out "The Phantom of the Paradise" if you're in the mood for a real trip-fest).
As far as direction and composition, I love what DePalma does with this film. The opening shot is 20 minutes long. Now if you've never examined a typical Hollywood film, this might not mean much to you, but normally a shot that is 1 minute is pretty long by today's standards. This first scene is filmed as an observer watching the main character react to the crucial event. The rest of the movie revisits this event from the perspective of other characters through first-person shots and split screens. It's beautifully done and I don't think the movie got the credit it deserved for this.
Secondly, I appreciate the realization that the main character has when he realizes how he is defined by the world around him. He realizes the persona that is him and decides he wants to change it. As Christians, we can relate as we had to make a similar change in definition of self when we became children of God. I also appreciate that the end of the film shows that such decisions are not filled with ease and happy endings.
It's a great movie and one of the few I never tire of watching.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Chariots of Fire (1981)
If asked what my favorite movie is, I can't really fall on one. But if a gun was put to my head and I had to pick one, this would very likely be it. This is a great, great film. There are so many aspects to it that endear me.
The photography is beautiful. The music by Vangelis sets the perfect tones and atmosphere. The performances are articulate and moving. I love that it deals with the idea of absolute truth and adherence to it. I don't personally believe that one cannot work on the Sabbath (or Sunday), but I do believe that if an individual believes it (as Eric Liddell did) he is obligated to be captive to that weight of conscience.
Liddell's faith is also presented in a very natural and positive manner. He uses the attraction of fans at a race as an opportunity to present the gospel. Many films with gospel presentations insert them in between plot points in a clumsy manner that pulls you out of the movie, not so here.
I love the juxtaposition of Abrahams and Liddell. One cares only to further himself, the other only to further God's glory. One is consumed with himself, the other with God. The exciting thing is to see both win, but to see the difference in how it affects them and what that says about their motivations.
At the end of the film, after Liddell is chastised and ridiculed for holding to his faith, then given a chance to race in an event he is not as familiar with, he reads the note that says "He who honors Me, will be honored". That moment always gets my heart pumping and you just want to see Eric "put his head back". I love this movie, if you haven't seen it, please go check it out!
The photography is beautiful. The music by Vangelis sets the perfect tones and atmosphere. The performances are articulate and moving. I love that it deals with the idea of absolute truth and adherence to it. I don't personally believe that one cannot work on the Sabbath (or Sunday), but I do believe that if an individual believes it (as Eric Liddell did) he is obligated to be captive to that weight of conscience.
Liddell's faith is also presented in a very natural and positive manner. He uses the attraction of fans at a race as an opportunity to present the gospel. Many films with gospel presentations insert them in between plot points in a clumsy manner that pulls you out of the movie, not so here.
I love the juxtaposition of Abrahams and Liddell. One cares only to further himself, the other only to further God's glory. One is consumed with himself, the other with God. The exciting thing is to see both win, but to see the difference in how it affects them and what that says about their motivations.
At the end of the film, after Liddell is chastised and ridiculed for holding to his faith, then given a chance to race in an event he is not as familiar with, he reads the note that says "He who honors Me, will be honored". That moment always gets my heart pumping and you just want to see Eric "put his head back". I love this movie, if you haven't seen it, please go check it out!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Juno (2007)
There are a lot of categories for movies such as drama, comedy, documentary, etc... I feel that there are some movies that consider an issue, formulate a position, then use the movie as a vehicle for that position. There's nothing wrong with that approach, mind you, but it needs to be recognized; some extreme examples would be "The Outlaw Josey Wales" or "Fahrenheit 9/11".
Then there are movies like "Juno". These films approach an issue, and simply present it in the context of a narrative. They don't make overt judgments or proclamations, they just say "here's life, it's complicate, you figure it out". I love it. "Juno" deals with a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant, decides to have an abortion, but ultimately can't go through it and decides to have the baby and give it up for adoption. Most conservatives would say "good for her!" and change the subject. This film examines the next 9 months of this girl's life and what the ramifications of this decision are. I don't want to spoil the ending but... it isn't easy! The right choice isn't always easy, in fact it's normally difficult. It was refreshing to see such a realistic, non-oppressive, and humorous approach to a hot button issue. I could have done without the spattering of explicatives, but such is life.
For another movie that presents life but doesn't try to explain it, check out "The House of Sand and Fog". Be warned, it is an excellently made film, but actually quite depressing.
Then there are movies like "Juno". These films approach an issue, and simply present it in the context of a narrative. They don't make overt judgments or proclamations, they just say "here's life, it's complicate, you figure it out". I love it. "Juno" deals with a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant, decides to have an abortion, but ultimately can't go through it and decides to have the baby and give it up for adoption. Most conservatives would say "good for her!" and change the subject. This film examines the next 9 months of this girl's life and what the ramifications of this decision are. I don't want to spoil the ending but... it isn't easy! The right choice isn't always easy, in fact it's normally difficult. It was refreshing to see such a realistic, non-oppressive, and humorous approach to a hot button issue. I could have done without the spattering of explicatives, but such is life.
For another movie that presents life but doesn't try to explain it, check out "The House of Sand and Fog". Be warned, it is an excellently made film, but actually quite depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
