Reviews

The Last Jedi breaks away from the shadow of the original series and attempts to forge new ground...to very mixed results. The strengths are stronger than anything in The Force Awakens. Gone too is the plot recycling from TFA. No more Death Star. Unexpected things happen. And the best scenes follow the classic feel of good vs. evil, most notably in the excellent fight scene in Snoke's throne room. But where its strengths grew stronger, so did its weakness.

TLJ at its heart is not a Star Wars film. Sure, it has a certain "Star Wars"ian ethos. Some of our beloved characters are back. But ultimately, it is about equality & social justice. The Star Wars series, on the other hand, at its heart is about good and evil, with good redeeming evil. It resonated with people on the most basic of instincts. It pushed way beyond the confines of its rather 2D story. TLJ seems aimed at the Millennial generation, to whom social justice is very important. While it is also important to me, Star Wars is not the appropriate place for "topical relevance". Star Wars is not about ending oppression. It is about good overcoming evil. So it is misguided at best in TLJ to have subplots about slavery and arms dealing. It is misguided to crowd the cast with mostly women fighters and fighters of every racial background just for the sake of doing so. Give us interesting characters and then we won't care what their race is. I left the theater feeling like someone in Disney was trying to force some social agenda upon me. The magic was lost in the midst of social politics. What a pity. It forces diversity without character depth, spirituality without theology, and social justice without resonance. TLJ is a critic's darling at the moment, but it will not stand the test of time like Ep. 4-6, which will always be beloved. And let's not even mention the utter disappointment of Luke's character and his fate. Unnecessary and soul draining.

Usually I applaud a movie for reaching for greatness and stumbling just short of it. Far better to try for it and fail, than to play it safe. But with TLJ, I wanted to say, "Leave my movie series alone!" Keep it pure and simple, and don't use it as a platform for social political views. Those subjects are best left for stories outside the Star Wars universe.

The Kendrick brothers are a paradox. They aim for realism, but script like an apologetic debate. They want to reach out to seekers of Christianity, but make films for Christians. In many ways, they miss their mark as filmmakers, constructing sermons instead of stories. For anyone who has read my reviews, you will quickly see that I am for the most part disappointed with modern American Christian film productions. They lack good script writing. They deal with complex problems superficially. Courageous, unfortunately, follows the trend. In many ways, it is an expanded version of their last film Fireproof. We delve into the lives of more characters and in more detail. But the Kendrick brothers do not break out of their financially successful formula. You have the born again believer (in fact, the same African American actor from both films). You have the skeptic who converts. You have the comic relief character (though this time given more depth). You have a resolution made by the characters. You have the sermon at the end of the film to make sure you get the point. What the Kendricks do, however, is turn out a deeper story and up the stakes. What you wind up with is a better version of Fireproof, but not one that breaks free of the weaknesses of that film.

The Kendricks choose here to tackle integrity and being a godly father to your family. These are noble and important subjects. But as always, they want to weave in the salvation message into the film. While this is good, it requires a delicate touch to make it real and not just a concept. But the script pounds you in the brain over and over again about God being the focal point to being a godly father. While that is true, the heavy-handedness of it makes for little way in for the skeptic. So, like Fireproof, I find this film more appropriate for Christian groups than secularists, at least in an American context. This film was shown at my church in Germany to both Christians and non- Christians. Ironically, the non-Christians seemed to like it as well. But I chalk it up to it being a foreign film to them, which makes it more appropriate to challenge the German secular world view. Had it been a local German production made by Christians, it might very well have been ridiculed just as I have seen American secularists deride it on this website. So have discernment before showing this to your American secular friends.

More pros and cons:

Pros: Decent acting from a mostly amateur cast. A final chase scene which despite its low budget was actually riveting (I cared about what happened). Deeper characters. Nice lighthearted touch with some really funny bits. Competent technical production values. A very touching scene between a father and daughter at a restaurant.

Cons: Pedantic, overbearing script. Oversimplifying solutions to complex problems. Racial stereotyping (though not mean spirited). The only women characters are completely dependent on their men characters (no variety). The sudden downfall of one of the main characters (plot twist with no real previous reason for it). Laughable scene with a gangster initiation.

This is one of the best films ever made. Somehow by divine providence, this gem got buried after its initial (and somehow unbelievably unsuccessful) run, and seemed doomed to be a lost Capra classic. But then it came into public domain and was revived by TV where it came into classic status as a beloved holiday film. Having seen it so many times, I almost forgot how good the acting, set design, and direction are. Look and you will see the subtleties crammed into every nook and cranny. The movements of the extras. The lived in feel of the town. The sidewalk walkers and animals roaming around. Everything breathes realism, yet the story is not one of stark realism, but of ideals.

And therein lies the classic feel of this film. Capra wanted a quasi real town that showed the ideal community he wanted to live in. Filled with flawed and normal people who are tempted to fall, but who rise to the occasion and help each other out. They don't do this of their own accord. They are inspired to it by the protagonist, George Bailey. It is his self-sacrifice that brings out the best of them. And then they get to help him out in his hour of need. It makes for a story that brings tears to the eyes every time I watch it.

This is one of those timeless classics that gets better with age. You feel like your putting on your favorite album you haven't heard in awhile or pulling out a photo album of happy memories you haven't seen in a few years. All of the actors fulfill their roles, from protagonist to extras. Great detail was put into the character relationships, making them seem like a real small town community where everyone knows each other. And they embody the goodness of man that, although tarred by sin, was put in there by God. If it's idealism is not completely realistic, it is nevertheless inspiring as the American town that we all wish we had grown up in. In that way, it is even relevant as a film of happy ideals during hard times. We need this kind of communal inter-dependency as we enter into dark times of 2017.

This is a decent film. It successfully wipes the slate clean of Episodes I-III. It brings us back most of the characters from Episodes IV-VI that we loved while handing the baton over to the next generation. And most importantly, it "feels like" a good Star Wars film. It focuses on broad emotions instead of scientific reality.

What it is not is original. The plot is basically a culmination of Episodes IV and VI. Another Death Star, another shield to bring down, another seedy cantina to visit, etc. In many ways, it feels recycled. There are bits of originality, the best being the risks they took with a villain in formation, Kylo Ren. I suspect that he will surpass Vader in evil by Episode VIII. By making him a trainee in darkness rather than already fully immersed, the writers took their biggest risk. And hence, Ren's character is also the most interesting thing about the movie. Just as good is Harrison Ford as Han Solo. He reprises his role as a man who is still the same rogue we love, but aged, full of wounds, and full of greater wisdom based on many mistakes. In short, Ford takes his simple character and goes to deeper places with him than ever before. I wish the same could have been done with Leia.

I will almost certainly see Episode VIII when it comes out in the theaters. My sons will demand it. ;o) But I have some trepidation. Should the makers, now having righted the wrongs of the prequels by delivering the pure nostalgia of Force Awakens, take Episode VIII into original and unexplored territory, then the series will be fully back on track. If they decide to play it too safe like they did here, then I might not be up for seeing Episode IX.

No dialogue films have been around since the beginning of cinema. The best could tell a thousand words through the mere glance of a character's eyes. But how does one do that with clay puppets? Very very slowly, with great detail, and with insurmountable patience. Each minute in this film must have taken days / weeks to complete. Were the camera anchored in position, perhaps it would have been easier. The camera in Shaun the Sheep never stays still. It pans, zooms, shifts focus -- while the claymation is MOVING! While not the first film to do so (Nightmare before Christmas is an excellent claymation film that did the same), it is done so seamlessly that you almost forget about the technical prowess in making it. All of this, of course, takes a back seat to the solid story and character development.

How does one take 5 minute serial cartoons and stretch them out to a full length movie? By expanding the backstory to the characters, of course. All cartoon serials made into feature length films have done this, but never as effectively as here. I think the answer is simplicity. They don't go for wackiness as much as for tenderness. The farmer is shown to be more of a father figure to the sheep. The entire farm is portrayed as a family. That raises the emotional stakes in the film which makes the simple funny moments funnier and the tender moments more heart warming. In essence, the simplicity and lean running time elevate the whole production. It rises beyond its origins and leaves the audience exhilarated. This is a movie you feel good you've seen. There is a purity about it which is lacking in most movies. Appropriate for absolutely any age, check this one out!

This film is very realistic. Its detailed depiction of one Turkish family living in Berlin casts overtones for a greater problem of European multiculturalism. But forget the wider scope of those implications for now. The film is very focused on Turkish culture within Germany and one of its great weaknesses: what it considers to be saving the "honor" of the family. The older daughter in the film has left her violent and abusive husband in Turkey and moved back to her family in Germany. Her parents immediately side with her husband, and they repeatedly ask the daughter to return to him. But the daughter has sacrificed much to get away, and will not return. After an attempt to kidnap her son and return him to the father fails, she moves out...and moves again...and moves again as problems mount. Her younger brother and sister, although initially supportive of her, slowly begin to turn against her as the shame of her living independently with child causes the Turkish community to isolate the family. This ultimately leads to a final decision by the men in the family, with tragic results.

The family is Muslim, although Islam is not portrayed as the reason why the family is shamed by the older daughter. In the culture, it is easy for an independent woman to bring shame to the family, especially if she leaves her husband. At no time do the parents ever seriously consider the perspective of their daughter. It is quite clear, she has to maintain the family honor at all costs; which in this case means returning to her husband. As the daughter continues to make unwise choices by maintaining contact with her family because she loves them, the unwritten codes of this "honor" system will drive the family into greater acts of cruelty. This film can make you very angry indeed at the injustice to women done by patriarch based communal cultures. The "honor" that they cling to is so twisted. It is based on a superficial sense of righteousness that has little basis in truth. It is more concerned with appearances than justice. More concerned with blind obedience than righteousness. And that concept is promoted in Islam, though not exclusively.

This film should be mandatory viewing for any woman in similar straits as the main character in the film who has needed to separate from the family for safety. The Germans have provided good resources for such women, but they are advised, "For now, avoid contact with your family." One of this beautifully done film's main points is: Once you leave or are forced to leave the family, it may be for good. You cannot expect your family to sympathize with you, support you, or even accept you as family. There is a good chance they WILL turn against you if the community slanders the family. And a woman who leaves her abusive husband, lives alone, calls the police for safety, or takes any action to safeguard her life and livelihood may very well be thought of as nothing more than a "whore" by the rest of the German Turkish community. Contact your family again at risk to your life! I would wish that Turkish men (those who are perpetrators, that is) who see this would also feel ashamed for some of their sexist standards, but I don't know if they would...

The film is very moving and well done. The actors all fulfill their roles, particularly the leading lady. The eye communication of the cast is extremely profound, leaving you wondering about all of the unspoken thoughts stewing in their heads. The writing allows sympathy with all of the characters while still clearly pointing out who is right and who is wrong. You see they all have deep passions about righteousness. It's just that some are righteous and others are not. It is a simple story that casts deep shadows on complexities of cultural clashes. This is not a film that will break grounds in cinematography, but it is a brave film and urgent as the Muslim (both immigrant and native) population rises in Europe. Hopefully this will start a trend that will cause the Turkish culture to think about what true honoring of the family really is.

Fireproof is a perfect example of why American Christians go in droves to see modern Christian movies. Why they prepare Bible study books based on the film. Why modern Christian films get so much hype at church. It is a triumph in modern Christian filmmaking...which is unfortunately not saying much. Like almost all Christian films, it is well intentioned. As a Christian myself, I see good possibilities in exploring cinema as a medium for evangelism and correcting societal evils. But this film will only preach to the choir.

It is well shot by modern Christian standards. There is a certain levity to the film which makes for some amusing comedic moments (the hot sauce scene). The "Love Dare" plot device is an interesting vehicle for encouraging selfless love to our spouses. But the focus here is clearly on the message, and not the medium. See Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson if you want to see a film which gets both message and medium right.

It is to be expected that churches will not have the budgets to finance professional actors. It is to be expected that churches will not have the budgets to produce a slick film (not compared to Hollywood standards, at least). But the church should be wise enough to concentrate on good scriptwriting. The film is a collection of modern evangelical church platitudes. While true that believers have the potential to have better marriages and deeper love than non-believers because of the power of God, the working out of it is complex. Near divorce situations require sound remedies that take Biblical truths and apply them to each specific couple's problem. What we get in this film are speeches by the characters that are so generic that they could apply to anybody. While that may give the viewer an inclusive feeling, it also leaves him/her without a real feeling of how the solution can be applied to them. The film is full of modern day church platitudes that are like "sound-bite" Christianity. They take the depth of Scripture and run ram-shod over it with a band-aid patching.

I do not recommend this film for non-Christians unless they are really wanting to become Christians. What this film IS good for is preventative maintenance or at least helping when the marital decay is in its formative stages. This is a feel-good, sit back and relax with a cup of coffee kind of movie to enjoy with a Christian men's group, Christian women's group, Christian couple's night, or with your Christian spouse. And if it does add strength to your marriage, then, Amen! May the Lord continue to bless you!

This film flies by in 20 min. with not a wasted second. Set in the Great Depression, it focuses on an inspirational traveling circus called the "Butterfly Circus". And most especially on the "limbless man" who stows away with them. This film goes as deep as it can in the short time span, so naturally none of the characters can be fully fleshed out. Yet it packs an emotional punch. And each character is given just enough face time so the audience cares about them. To the extremely jaded, they might be skeptical of such an inspirational film as this, but for the majority, this film will lift your spirit, especially if you are a teenager. Although the filmmakers and its star are all Christian, the spiritual message is more buried here, making it immediately accessible to anyone of any persuasion.

I have seen many modern Christian films, and with the exception of the outstanding Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, most were lamentable. Their budget could not support state of the art special effects and many of the actors seemed to be church buddies of the director with minimal experience. But what was the worst was the poor and superficial script writing. So Butterfly Circus comes off as a real delight. Still working with a limited budget, the director and cast clearly knew how to make use of their resources. The acting, while not Oscar worthy, is realistic and convincing. The script, while unable to be exceptionally deep because of the short running time, is provocative enough to touch the heart. You feel like you're "there" in the story. And the lighting and music are first rate, giving a dreamy feel to the entire production.

The ringmaster Mendes says, "What this world needs is a little wonder!" In its own small way, that is the feeling you are left with after viewing this gem.

This is a very funny film by any country's standards. It DOES assume you know something about French geographic stereotypes, but if you have a French buddy by your side (or you have an Aunt who used to live there like I did), then they can clarify it to you really quick. Here's my quick lesson: Southern France - Rich, pastoral, civilized, good...Northern France - the boonies. Of course, that's the prevailing stereotype played for laughs, but the laughs come not from the truth of it, but because of the opposite. And then it gets even more fun and freewheeling. If French is not your mother tongue, the English subtitles do a good job it translating not just standard French, but country accents and slang. You see that there is a difference between the way people talk in different regions. The set-up of the movie is funny and the end pay-off is very satisfying. The characters are all memorable and warm. There is no bad guy, just people who grow to care about each other. In the end, it is about embracing people for who they are as much as it is about standing up for yourself. And it is sooooooo nice to finally see a modern continental European movie without a gratuitous sex scene. The continent could learn quite a bit about filming innocence and whimsy and not always depicting gritty realism. This movie is a great comedy!

Click Clack Jack is a children's movie, not a family movie. My two sons (6&7 years old) just finished watching it and enjoyed it. It is safe, harmless, has a good message, and is very gentle. The warm camera compositions and color palette of the feature makes for an enjoyable experience for young ones. What it is not, is fun for the adults to watch. The acting is terrible (the actors constantly play up to the audience, which is annoying), the plot is simplistic and has a few holes, and the pacing lags too often in the more intimate scenes. But for those looking for safe and good natured entertainment for youngsters, Click Clack Jack is a decent enough choice. My only regret with Christian productions of late is that they should put as much passion into the craft of acting as they put into the Gospel message. Too often the scripts are overly simplistic and the actors looked like they have had little experience beyond a few church drama productions.

This film will inevitably get compared to Mel Gibson's brilliant and moving Passion of the Christ. I myself find it nearly impossible to judge it on its own merits. Jesus is portrayed in another big budget motion picture, this time showing a "greatest hits" of events in his life. Some cohesion is lost in the process. Satan is nowhere to be found. Pilate is portrayed as more cruel but with a certain calculation to administering his law. The special effects range from excellent to phony (the cityscape of Jerusalem being the most laughable). The acting ranges from pretty okay to bland, Caiaphas and Roma Downey's Mary being the most unbelievable. For those of the Catholic persuasion, there are elements to the walk to Golgotha that are unique to the Roman church.

For those who have little Christian background and who have not studied film, this film can be an excellent way to visually introduce the life of Jesus. We just got from taking several youth to see it, mostly non-Christians, and it made an impression on most. So, there is a certain emotive power the film can have. But if you know the life of Jesus well, you will find things to nitpick about. While the film does do a good job of following the Biblical narrative, the beauty of the Biblical narrative is dumbed down in a sea of special effects, simplified dialogue, and adding unnecessary background story. There is also one random part added in that could undermine the message of the film. Jesus praying in Gethsemane is intercut with the high priests praying in the temple and Pilot and his wife praying to their ancestors. It is completely unclear why the filmmakers added that part. If their intention was to show how all religions are equally true, then the filmmakers should do some repenting on their part, as that was not Jesus' message at all. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." Curiously enough, that second part of the quote is left out of the film.

And if Passion of the Christ rocked your world, you will be sorely disappointed in this film. Everything about the Gibson film, from the effects, to the acting, to the pacing, to the use of ancient Aramaic and Latin is far superior to Son Of God. And Son Of God can't help but borrow some of what made Mel Gibson's film so powerful, but it comes across as a poor imitation. Jesus is so gentle in Son Of God that most of the fire is lost from Him. Here is the main difference: I was deeply and cathartically immersed in the world of Passion of the Christ whereas Son Of God made me feel like watching a well done High School drama production of Jesus' life.

Religulous is a movie with an agenda. Bill Maher would like us to believe that he is a peddler of doubt and that doubting makes you humble. But Maher is a man with a plan. He doesn't really have any doubt at all about his views on God and the after-life (in his mind, they are both non-existent). For the lovers of sarcasm, the movie will deliver in spades. He sets up his interviews to catch for the most part those on the fringe of religious life; the freaks and cult off-shoots of major religions. But not always. He does interview Muslims and Mormons who are more "average persons" or leaders and therefore a better representation of their religion. He does not delve into Buddhism or Hinduism at all. He keeps close to larger religions in and around America (sometimes Europe). The editing of his interviews are all designed to take most statements out of context, for the purpose of getting the laughs. If you want to see someone who is trying to irritate others and doesn't play fair, this movie is for you.

However, that is the precise weakness of this film. Maher deliberately goes for easy targets. Nowhere does he go for a John Piper or a Tim Keller. And who knows how many intelligent answers he may have gotten that were left on the editing floor because they didn't fit his mold? Maher is also incredibly condescending. He berates people. His little sermon at the end clearly demonstrates what was his purpose all along, to overthrow the "poison" of religion.

This is a common view held by New Atheists. Religion is poison. They are unwilling to coexist with it. They see all evil coming from it. They believe that mankind, if allowed to evolve past it, will enter into a new golden age. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Mankind is hardwired to adhere to something greater than itself. And when we pervert that desire and "worship" ourselves, then we begin to have the greatest cruelties ever committed on earth. The atheist Pol Pot's regime, Stalin's, Mao Tze Tong's are only a prelude to something worse. Religious adherence has also made its share of atrocities. Anytime anyone arrogantly says "I refuse to co-exist with you because you are sub-human" we are destined for societal self-destruction. Maher inadvertently would wish to take us there.

Maher also does not do very good research. For example, he scans a few quotes from the founding fathers of the USA and jumps to the conclusion that the US was not founded upon Christian principles. But if you look at history, such as the public school textbooks used (The New England Primer - peppered with King James Bible quotes to teach lessons), the actual constitution, and other quotes of the founding fathers, it is quite clear the US WAS founded upon Protestantism. The founding fathers were very clear that in order for the country to survive, they needed a people that could discipline themselves. Therefore, Christianity was deliberately promulgated into all aspects of society, particularly in the public schools.

The one positive thing about this film is that it should spur Christians to dutifully analyze Scripture and reflect deeply on the faith. Too often, we come up with pat answers to deep life questions. Immersion in Scripture with the Holy Spirit giving guidance on interpretation will return us to the heartfelt intellectualism we had a few generations ago. God commands us to worship Him with our whole heart, soul, and intellect. We recently have ignored the intellect. Scripture is sufficient to give us clairvoyance into the challenges of life.

MIB is a smart and funny film buoyed by the tremendous comedic interplay between its 2 leads: Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith. They take the solid script and do everything right with it. The side characters (excepting the generic female lead) all hit their mark, adding to the enjoyment of this picture. Especially good is Vincent D'Nofrio (spelling?) who plays the "skin". He is as hilarious with his physical quirks as he is creepy. He must be having the time of his life acting here. And seeing Rick Baker's fabulous monster make-up effects is always a treat. The only critique is that it is not a film that particularly stimulates your brain or heart. But if you are looking for high quality popcorn entertainment, MIB is first rate.

Paul Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a masterpiece not only Christian literature, but of the English language. It's allegorical format coupled with a plethora of Bible quotes make it a powerful tool for the conviction of sin, the warning of the wrath of God, the grace He cleanses our sin away with, and the need to "run as though to win the prize". A truly awesome and inspired book.

This movie, however, does a poor service to that classic. As I have said of other Christian films, one does not expect or even desire big budget extravagance. But one does expect a producer to find good Christian actors and finance a good script. Pilgrim's Progress the book is written like a play, so one would think the script would be a piece of cake, right? Wrong! Someone somewhere must have looked at the book and said, "Duh...this prose is too hard to understand. People won't get it. Let's slang it up with today's talk! Uh...yeah...huh huh!" It amounts to a rape of the book. Producers, people are not stupid. They can "get it" if you give the old English prose a chance. Another better option would have been to completely re- modify the book setting and place it totally in modern surroundings, instead of this hybrid treatment we got here. Go totally like the book, or go totally modern, don't go in-between.

The acting, while not the worst I have seen, leaves much to be desired. It is all surface. The tears flow on the surface but communicate nothing of the personal struggles within. The vocal work is flat. There is no gesture and posture work that makes anyone distinctive. The characters all melt together, not leaving you remembering anyone clearly. In a word, it doesn't ring true.

The special effects and music, while not so important to me, are negligible.

There is one good result of my seeing this film. It made me want to read the book and relish John Bunyan's God inspired genius. And to think he was basically an uneducated man when he wrote this! Me thinkst our English is getting more and more simplified and dumbed down at the passing of every generation.

The third installment in the big budget Narnian films gives us a more or less solid film with impressive special effects wasted on a hackneyed script and mediocre acting. There are a couple of exceptions in the acting department. The boy playing Eustace hits his mark and the voice work for Reepicheep is handled well. The special effects are dazzling; merging reality with digital almost seamlessly. But my critique of this film is exactly the same as the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe film (I never saw Prince Caspian): The atmosphere is all wrong.

Lighthearted whimsy is exchanged for somberness. A slow paced voyage is traded for a rapid fire adventure that moves so fast, we cannot enjoy the characters nor the moment. This isn't fantasy, it is a special effects reel. Added negatives include the actors, none of whom (Reepicheep excepted) capture any semblance of the royalty they attempt to portray. The actor playing Caspian is especially dimwitted in playing a king. He seems more like a befuddled commoner who learned a few royal gestures at school somewhere. At no time do you feel nor do his men feel like they are in the presence of a great king (which was the case in the book). The movie takes great liberties with the plot of the book, opting instead for a silly new plot about an evil mist which sucks away slaves in boats. This brings about a couple of new side characters (a father and daughter), neither of whom make much of an impression.

What this movie series need is to RECAPTURE THE MOOD OF THE BOOKS and avoid throwing out the plot for a newer one. They can keep the special effects, but temper them with a story that takes its time and is as entranced with its surroundings as the passengers aboard the Dawn Treader were. Are the producers afraid to elevate the material up to the audience, instead of pandering down to short attention spans? It sure seems so. While taken on its own terms the movie is professionally handled, I guarantee the movie would have stuck in the minds of the audience more if greater pains were taken on a good script and good acting. As it is, you watch the film, leave, and then don't remember much afterward.

The 2005 version of this classic children's novel is a very competently made film. It for the most part seamlessly blends special effects, CGI, and live action together. The acting is competent. It follows the book with few exceptions. Why only a 5 star rating? It takes itself way too seriously. C.S. lewis' novels were so enchanting because it was all about tone first with story a close second. In the film, while the plot is followed, the charm was lost. The characters were stiff and serious. I did not feel the excitement of children exploring a new world. I did not feel reverence and awe in the presence of Aslan. What I remember mostly from the film was the last battle which was extended and shown in great detail. In the book, the battle is given only a couple of paragraphs. But since this is Hollywood, they felt the need to extend it and ramp up the violence. In many ways, I felt I was watching an action film for adults marketed to children. The only scenes that came close to enchantment were with the beavers. But that didn't help the serious tone of the film to lighten up. This is one of those films where less would have been more, slower have been more exciting, and character more entrancing than action. What surprised me the most was how the fabulous Tilda Swinton came off so unconvincing as the White Witch! I still have yet to see that character portrayed convincingly.

Basic advice, if you want a "good looking" film with action and special effects, then you will like this film version of the novel. But if you are willing to forgo the superficial pleasures and enjoy the tone of the novel (the most distinguishing aspect of the Lewis' book), then check out the 1988 BBC television version. It production value is very crude by today's standards, but it captures the magic of the book better and lets the story unfold naturally.

This is a really well filmed movie. The acting ranges from average to very authentic. I wonder how they managed to film some of the settings and how much the Massai way of life was disturbed by the film crew's visits. In any case, on a technical level, it is well produced. The message is the problem of this film. Ostensibly, the film is a romance failed between western, civilized, white Swiss woman and eastern, uncivilized, black African man. They start off passionate, but soon come the inevitable cultural clashes. In every circumstance, the white woman reacts as a westerner would (and not surprising - how else should one be expected to act?). What IS surprising is that we see the Massai husband attempt in every circumstance to accept or even adopt the ways of his wife. He fails almost every time, but, man, did she find an understanding man to marry. He even goes so far as to cut off his precious warrior hair (a symbol of his manhood) so that she will be more pleased with him. The fact that he loses patience, lashes out, or accuses her of infidelity should come as natural, as his ignorant wife steps over his cultural taboos repeatedly. But he manages to stifle letting his anger out fully because he loves her. Even his tribe accepts this woman, who arrogantly assumes her ways upon them. Now I would have had no problem with these developments had the movie been completely neutral or sided with the Massai more (clearly the Massai were far more patient with her than she with them). But this film seems to side with the white woman and subtly justify her decision to leave country and take their daughter with her, leaving her husband disgraced and now childless. We are asked to sympathize with her, and while we should, we are not asked to sympathize with the Massai. What a wasted opportunity. The film gets 4 points for technical prowess, but none more because of the story!

If you are looking for something safe to watch for 3-7 year olds, you have found your movie. Der kleine Eisbär is about as innocent as you can be. Action is quickly followed by moments of rest (some of the best scenes are actually of the bears swimming around the Arctic ocean to absolutely dreamy music). And there is no overt violence. This movie does not exactly show model family relationships with parents who are wimpy and ill discerning and a son who basically deliberately disobeys them. Aside from that, there are subtle messages of interracial tolerance and cooperation scattered throughout, but ultimately the film is a journey experience. The problem is that it is not all that fun to watch except for young children. Curious George (another film made primarily for smaller children) left you grinning from ear to ear during the whole film, despite its many plot holes. Der kleine Eisbär will pretty much leave parents feeling, "Well, at least my kid really likes it." It is too disjointed a movie with payoffs that are too modest to be of much interest to anyone without kids. But, still, if you want a kids' movie...then buy Curious George...and then buy this one if you have some money leftover. ;o)

Just saw this movie last night. To get straight to the point, if you have always wanted to sit back and listen to poetry sung/spoken with all the deep subtleties of the soothing French language, then you have found your movie. Without a doubt, the focus is on the rhyme, meter, and prose. What a pity this musical focuses so little on the drama and storyline. I love a simple story well told. I love music. Words carefully chosen can send trembles down my spine. What I do not like are constant interruptions. And that is what you get in this movie. The drama interrupts the music and the music interrupts the drama. There are simply far too many songs (about 1 every 5 minutes) that prevent us from sucking any depth out of the story. And with a story so simple as this movie's is, you need some time to dig deep. You are allowed none of that. And what a shame because everything feels flat. Even the poetry of the songs, while sounding deep, end up ultimately talking about nothing. The movie seems to feel that tiny random events of beauty in and of themselves, make life meaningful. They don't. Tiny random events of beauty make life exhilarating because there is a higher meta-narrative which transcends them and ties them together.

"Magique" also suffers from few memorable melodies and average singing. But the director did not intend to produce full blown songs. but rather more diary entries into the character's heads. Still not very interesting from a dramaturgical point of view. Nothing moved me.

RUSH. You're going to have one of three reactions to that title. One: Who are they? Two: Oh yeah, some group that recorded Tom Sawyer back in the day. Three: Awesome kings of Rock 'n' Roll! I used to be a massive Rush fan up until around their Test For Echo album. Major life changes and having gotten too frustrated with their 80's synthesizer work put them on the back burner for awhile. I had, however, been to the Counterparts concert and was exhilarated by their fun performing. I was so excited to see the boys in this documentary though. The documentary is fairly simple: some concert footage, talking heads from Rush themselves or people who worked with them/admired them, a little footage of the band just goofing off together, and you've got your film. So don't go to this documentary expecting a breakthrough in the film genre. It is a solidly produced and edited movie that has an undercurrent of positivity, fun, and honesty. You feel like you get to know the band, and they come across as good friends, good husbands, and good guys. It's something awesome to see hard rockers getting hit with success but never giving in to the usual temptations of infidelity, casual sex, and heavy drug usage (except for pot). There's a sense of righteousness about this band, in a weird way.

Much is focused on the band getting little critical respect, but winning devoted fans worldwide. I remember growing up I actually got teased for having them as my favorite band. As I watched the film, I had a big smile on my face as memories flooded back from how I tried to cop Neil Peart by taking pots and pans and drumming on them. Their epic song story concepts always fascinated me. But they were always on the edge of mainstream. Now Rush seems to be cool again. Rush fans, we can come out of the closet and enjoy them once again publicly. This movie is not for someone who is not a Rush fan, but it is very endearing for those who enjoy them. I have been listening to my old Rush music since seeing this documentary and marveling once again at their craftsmanship.

This is a slight movie with some very good performances, especially by the 2 Smiths. It is somewhat a pity to see the talent of Will Smith poured into his usually very silly action flicks. This movie, while no action flick, is nevertheless one that comes across as a big budget after school special instead of the serious drama it pretends to be. But there is a greater disturbing factor to the Pursuit of Happiness: The idea that happiness is equated with money. I laughed out loud when he sees all the stock brokers walking out of work looking so happy. How stressful is their life in reality? And I suppose some would be happy with their paycheck. Pity that a lot of them get it through conning people and manipulating facts. This is only emphasized further by the very last title screen at the end where again it talks about the heroes net worth. It was frankly an offensive slap in the face to anyone who has had to deal with the complex and trying issues of poverty. Poverty is somewhat made out to be a choice rather than a condition or an oppression, and the truth is it is very complex.

And yet there are very moving parts of the human drama, especially through the wonderfully told bonding between the 2 Smith characters. I give it a five for these many moments. An average movie at best with some Oscar worthy performances buried within.

Contact is a moving film about whether science and faith can coexist wrapped all up in sci-fi trappings. And Zemeckesis' and Sagan's (who wrote the rough draft of the script) conclusion is that they can. Jodi Foster's character represents the side of atheistic analyzer and Matthew McConaughey represents faith and experience. The film however puts it magnificently that though they are bound by different covenants, they are still seeking the same thing: truth. Rarely is Hollywood brave enough to tackle such hot and deeply personal issues in a film; and rarely do they do it so engagingly. This film will dazzle your eyes, move your heart, and stimulate your brain. For any who would claim to be religious and condemn science as of the devil or to any who would claim to be an atheist and condemn the faithful as ignorant and inferior human beings, I have one message for you: see this movie! It will broaden your horizon, touch your heart, and humble you in a good way. Have fun discussing!