Playing off of millennial end times paranoia, this laughable film about the rise of the antichrist is a goofy embarrassment. Films such as this are the reason “Christian film” has a bad rap. Poor film making fueled by poor theology = poor audience members.


Related Reviews:
Christian films
Thr3e (2006)
The Second Chance (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
FilmCritic.com

Labels: Casper Van Dien, Christian film, film, Michael York, movie review

Interesting when it was released during the Clinton years, the piece is dated and useless now. John Travolta in the lead role as a Clintonesque presidential nominee is passable. The meat of the piece comes from good supporting performances by Kathy Bates, Emma Thompson and Billy Bob Thornton. A mere curiosity now, there's little reason to drag this thing out at this point.


Related Reviews:
Political movies
Truman (1995)
John Adams (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Threat
MovieMaven's Haven

Labels: Billy Bob Thornton, Emma Thompson, film, John Travolta, Kathy Bates, movie review, politics

Short Review: It has zombies, how bad can it be?




This could have been a brilliant film. As it stands, its still a darn good one. Don't fool yourself, this is big, sloppy, McMovie and the is plenty that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. So, if you're someone who notices things like that if the zombies are capable of setting traps they would have been doing so already to catch food and wouldn't have cannibalized their fellow man out of starvation, then you should be just fine.

Will Smith is precisely the right guy to lead this film. He's a solid lead actor and is capable of managing most of the film on his own. He engenders interest and sympathy as Robert Neville, a military scientist who is apparently the last man on earth after a cure for cancer goes sour and either kills the population or turns them into raging zombies. Smith's charisma carries the first half of the film where he is alone in the world with his dog. As the story picks up and the zombies are introduced his natural talent handling scenes where he is in peril is displayed. The other actors in the film are passable and fail to compete with Smith's performance. This isn't to imply Smith created a memorable piece of acting, the other roles are simply underwritten and were designed to make them into talking props. Even when the film is populated with multiple human characters it is still all about Neville.

Director Francis Lawrence (the man responsible for the unwatchable Constantine), manages the first half of the film well and sets up the destruction of mankind in effective flashbacks. Once the other characters, a woman and a small boy, are introduced the film stumbles a little. Their time together is so brief and lacking of any depth that the relationships never emerge. The woman and kid show up and that night the zombies attack. Its over before it begins. Also missing is the sense that Neville has been utterly alone for years. His first interactions with other humans is oddly handled. He throws a fit, which is an interesting reaction, but it isn't played as an ironic reaction, it comes off more as bad writing. This mixed with the brief respite before the zombies attack saps the film of some potentially vibrant character development.

The other downside of the film is the zombies themselves. They're infected humans who have been turned into growling, frantic rage-machines. In the original book by Richard Matheson, the infected speak to him from the darkness, he actually recognizes one of them as being his old friend. This interaction sets up a great dramatic tension that could have been played out with great effect in this production. They chose to ignore this in favor of having the infected be faceless ghouls. This choice drains the film of some key tools to drive any symbolism and/or dramatic tension. The idea of Neville being called after as he tries to get home in time, or having the infected attempt to lure him out at night seems like cinematic gold. The irony of his never ending loneliness being interrupted every night by the voices of the undead calling for his blood could have been riveting. As it stands, we're stuck with pale, bald growlers.

Overall, the film succeeds, but it could have been far better. As a McMovie, it entertains, retains a worthy message and closes with a satisfying conclusion. Yes, I'm one of the few critics who think this film ended well. Actually, the ending is nearly perfect from my point-of-view. Neville's Christ-like sacrifice and the prominent images of the church at the end of the movie are well-placed and make an important point. The original ending, the one in the final film is an alternative that was thankfully inserted, had Neville and the zombies coming to terms. Neville gives up the girl zombie to the head zombie guy who holds her gently. This original ending is the typical moral-relativist conclusion we see these days. This ending would have spoiled the sin and redemption through blood concepts so vividly displayed in the final close.

Should you see it? Sure. Particularly if you've ever sat through The Omega Man, the embarrassing Charlton Heston version of the same story. For all of the faults of this production, it didn't make the zombies into nonsense babbling hippies.


Cautions: It has zombies so there's plenty of violence. The violence is rather subdued and there isn't much gore. The language is rather tame as well.


Worldview: Exceedingly rare in Hollywood films is not only the mention of God by name but the instruction that he is concerned for humanity and works with us directly. Normally Hollywood deals with issues of faith in neutered language that fails to reveal any real conviction to anything real. This film stunningly breaks from that tradition. While Neville drives through an abandoned New York he casually passes a sign that reads "God still loves us". Presumptively, he has been passing by this obtuse sign of hope everyday since the apocalypse destroyed his world. This reminder of the endearing love God shows for his creation didn't make it into the film by accident. This is also the case with Neville's picture of himself on a magazine cover citing him as a "savior". The film sets Neville to be a surrogate Christ-figure, but one that has been distracted. He has been flummoxed by the apocalypse because he has insisted on seeing the devastation through the eyes of the material, through science. Employing science while ignoring the governing hand of God is like completing a jigsaw puzzle upside down. You can figure out how the pieces fit together but you're missing the beauty and function of the design. Neville struggles to find a man-made cure for the infection (sin) but is unable. When Neville finds Anna (who is reminiscent of the prophetess from Luke 36-38). She tells him that God still exists and that "he has a plan". Of course, meaning a plan to eradicate the infection/sin. In the end, Neville sacrifices himself and gives the cure for the infection/sin derived from his own blood, again he is a Christ-figure, to Anna who witnesses his sacrificial death. She then travels to a sanctuary where she closes the film telling of how Neville and his blood cure was indeed the savior of humanity. The Christian overtones to the film are unmistakable and wonderfully woven in without being to heavy-handed. Pay attention Christian filmmakers, the inclusion of faith is exactly how it should be done. Faith plays a critical role in the production but doesn't consume it, God is involved but the narrative doesn't turn into a Bible-banging sermon. Its amazing what a little subtlety can do.



Related Review:
Omega Man (1971)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Monsters and Critics
Rolling Stone

Labels: film, movie review, Will Smith, zombie

Maybe the best sports film of all time. Following the rise of a small town basketball team, this film inspires and entertains. Gene Hackman gives a top notch performance as the troubled head coach Norman Dale. An absolute must-see for anyone who loves sports.


Related Reviews:
Sports movies
Mystery, Alaska (1999)
The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
DVDweeb.com
Christian Spotlight

Labels: basketball, Dennis Hopper, film, Gene Hackman, movie review, sports movie

Short Review: The cool thing about casting John Travolta is that it sets the bar low enough so no one else in the production need to bother trying.


You know you’ve really made it in Hollywood when you can stop acting and no one complains. Travolta has been too busy for the past ten years to take the time to get into character. Once again, we are treated to his “Guy In Charge” role. You know this guy from The General’s Daughter, Swordfish, Basic, Broken Arrow among others. Producers pay this guy millions to show up, wear collars that emphasis the thickness of his neck and prattle his lines with a emotional vocabulary usually reserved for comic books.

This movie is so predictable it doesn’t even count as a paint-by-numbers plot. The math involved in painting by numbers is too intelligent for this melodramatic stew. I loathe movies like this. They are so unoriginal I get headaches trying to citing all of the other films this movie pulls from. There are some very talented people involved here – including Travolta (the reason I complain about his acting is because he’s shown he can do far better and doesn’t seem to be trying,) and they are all wasted on this heap.

Now that I have done enough snarling to cement the idea I didn’t like this film, I should point out some of the brighter points. This movie does show blue-collar people as real humans with lives. This is worth noting since Hollywood goofballs usually are in a rush to slam middle class folk as mouth-breathing dimwits. This film respects its characters and does not mock their “normal” lives. The filmmakers understand that while firefighters will never be rich or famous, they are vital to their communities. They deserve the same admiration we reserve for the military or police. The filmmakers also took great care to try to show the life of a firefighter. While it was clumsily handled in many areas, I liked the fact they made the effort.

In closing I can’t recommend this all too common movie. There is hardly anything new here in regards to the plot. Many people who can watch films without a critical eye (and I am often jealous of that ability,) will enjoy this flick. This movie is not worth the rental – if you see it on cable, check it out if you’re bored. Worst case scenario, you can make a drinking game out of it. Take a shot every time you see John Travolta looking at his watch, waiting for his scene to end so he can cash his fat paycheck.


Related Reviews:
John Travolta films
Get Shorty (1995)
Be Cool (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Zertinet Reviews
Silver Screen Reviews

Labels: film, Joaquin Phoenix, John Travolta, movie review

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella Deville. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Another Meryl Streep movie
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci

Director Mark Forster (Finding Neverland) creates a memorable and moving story about two Afghan friends. The film spans a good portion of their lives from childhood to adulthood when one of the friends returns home to help save other's son. The film is a little uneven and the acting is stilted at times but the overall piece packs a punch and overwhelms the flaws. This should go onto your must see list immediately.


Related Reviews:
Another film about Afghanistan
Osama (2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Ill-Informed Gadfly

Labels: film, Mark Forster, movie review

***Thanks to Burton of BURTONIA for this interesting look at this obscure documentary.***

Should I see it?

Yes, especially for Christians.

Short Review: Elmer Gantry is a Hippy.

During the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, English-speaking German saboteurs infiltrated American lines wearing American uniforms. The effort failed miserably as quick-thinking American soldiers improvised short tests involving questions about baseball and other bits of Americana. In a similar way, Hollywood evinces some fascination with American popular religion, but is quite unable to get the details right. From Night of the Hunter to Leap of Faith, moviemakers have attempted to mine the rich intersection of greed and revivalist religion. To someone like me, who grew up in this milieu, they come across as ridiculous as a German soldier trying to act like an American G.I.

Hollywood's fictions make Marjoe that much more astonishing. In the early '70's, a former child evangelist, Marjoe Gortner, decides to quit the revival preaching circuit in a spectacular way. He hooks up with a documentary film crew and takes them along as he preaches in tents and churches in California, Texas, and Michigan. The power of the film comes in the harsh contrast between his passionate performances in front of the faithful and his cynicism, greed, and unbelief when the meetings are over.

The movie begins with a short explication of Marjoe's history. His parents invented his persona from birth, starting with his name, a conflation of Mary and Joseph. They made him into a preaching automaton, from the age of four. At no point does he ever seem to have believed any of it. By the time he was a teenager, he was bitter and alienated, and broke with his parents. He wound up a flower child, and only returned to preaching to solve his money "hang-ups".

What makes a thirty-five year old documentary fresh today is how good Gortner was at what he did. He had obviously been a keen observer of the words, mannerisms, and body language of the southern Pentecostal preachers. Even his hand-on-hip strut, which he freely admits copying from Mick Jagger, is completely natural. He perfectly employs every verbal tic in the repertoire. And his talent is chameleon-like. When he appears in front of black Pentecostals, Marjoe effortlessly slips into the sing-song delivery beloved of African American preachers. He fools them all, from the least to the greatest. In one devastating clip, we see him having lunch with another pastor, and Marjoe is tut-tutting over all the con-men preachers taking advantage of the gullible.

This is a pre-Ken Burns, pre-Michael Moore documentary; it lacks structure and an agenda – and the film is better for it. The only narration is from Marjoe himself. We observe, without distracting commentary, his antics in church, juxtaposed against him counting the take on a hotel room bed, and mocking the simple church-goers in front of his groovy, shaggy friends. If the film has a weakness it is that the filmmakers are clearly distracted by the Pentecostalists' bizarre behavior. There are long shots of people "slain in the spirit", writing on the floor, shaking uncontrollably, and speaking in tongues. These become tedious. Curiously, none of the people in the pews are interviewed. In the end, we want to see and hear more from Marjoe himself.

Marjoe muses throughout that all this Jesus stuff is not so bad, and is compatible with his new-found Aquarian make-love-not-war-give-peace-a-chance philosophy. It's just that all the threats of sin and hell he has to use to pump up the offerings are such a drag, man. If only Marjoe had been born just ten years later, he could have joined a new generation of Christian syncretists who successfully combined pop-psych sloganeering, new age success secrets, and a theologically gutted Christianity. Gortner could have been richer than he dreamed possible.


Related Reviews:
Documentaries
Street Fight (2005)
Manda Balla (Send a Bullet) (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Spirituality & Practice
Film Junk

Labels: Christian culture, documentary, film, Marjoe Gortner, movie review

This is a very predictable movie. Written, directed and starring Alex Kendrick, this film probably should have been written and directed by someone else. Kendrick is passable in the lead, as a down-and-out football coach who turns to God for help. Its not a horrid film, but the script and direction are far too blunt and promote a theological thought that makes God out to be a dispenser of good tidings and little more. The characters turn to God and he answers all of their immediate problems, as if he were some celestial wishing well. We are servants of the Lord, not the other way around. I'm not saying its inherently wrong to turn to God for help, but this film seems to support the idea that if you believe in God, you'll have all your wishes come true. God is not a self-help Santa Clause.

As a movie, this is a lukewarm production. Some parts succeed while others fail. It pushes its agenda way too hard and stumbles over simple narrative hurdles. Most non-Christians will turn their noses up at this. Christians may be more sympathetic.

I would say that the hype surrounding the movie regarding the MPAA giving this film a PG-13 Rating because it was too "Christian" or too proselytizing is simply not true. The film deals with a man's infertility issues, this topic alone would keep the film from getting a G-Rating. The cries of foul over the rating seem to me to be cheap baiting of Christians, depending on their constant desire to be victimized by the wider culture.


Related Reviews:
Christian films
One Night with the King (2006)
The Second Chance (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
Hollywood Jesus

Labels: Alex Kendrick, Christian film, film, movie review, sports movie, Stephen Kendrick

Think of it this way, if you were in school when this film was released; it is to kids today what those goofy monster movies of your parent’s generation were to you. This was made for a specific audience and a specific time. It is doubtful other age groups would respond as positively to this cheap Hollywood pap. This said, it is still fun and stupid – Jack Bauer is coming to bite you.


Related Reviews:
Vampire movies
Dracula 2000 (2000)
Underworld (2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Arrow in the Head
Roger Ebert

Labels: Dianne Wiest, film, Jason Patric, Kiefer Sutherland, movie review

Not all of John Wayne’s films are great. This film proves it. Wayne portrays John Chisum a cattle baron who gets entangled with cattle thieves. He saddles up with Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid in the process. It's like seeing a film about a kid dealing with a bully and having the kid taking up with Batman and Robin Hood. The biggest problem is that surrounded by iconic cohorts, Wayne's own larger than life persona feels like a parody of itself. I know some John Wayne fans may disagree, but I've always considered this to be one of his worst efforts.


Related Reviews:
John Wayne movies
Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)


Other Critic's Reviews:
eFilmCritic
EOpinions.com

Labels: film, John Wayne, movie review, western

This film answers the question "how sicked out will I get if I ever see Tom Hanks' naked buttocks". There's gratuitous nudity and then there's a middle aged man pointing his middle aged bum at the camera for no good reason. Hey Tom, it didn't go to moving the plot along, you didn't need to do it. Save it for your wife, she married you, let her live with the image. Let the rest of us alone.

If you can struggle past seeing Hanks' wrinkled, pale mud flaps, you will find a fantastic movie. Hanks is perfectly cast as Good Time Charlie Wilson. Wilson, a hard-living congressman, was responsible for pushing the CIA's largest covert operation giving support to Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting against the Soviets and their puppets in the Communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Hanks is perfect for the role because of his ability to charm. This is critical for the role because under any criteria, Wilson is bad guy. He's a drinker, womanizing hog, living off the teat of his constituents. Hanks is able to overwhelm the negatives and provide us with a charismatic lead we can get behind.

Supporting Hanks is Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, a CIA agent who guides Wilson through the political and special ops minefields of building a war against the Soviets via Afghanistan. Hoffman, like Hanks, is a reliable talent who tackles even his minor scenes with zeal. The two work together wonderfully as does most of the rest of the cast. The only fault is in Julia Robert's performance. She is a performer, a personality, not an actress and her inability to give her performance any depth is striking when she's put up against Hanks and Hoffman. Her numerous scenes feel like an extended cameo more than a support role.

Smartly, the script by Aaron Sorkin (The American President) is light on overt agenda. In this day and age it is important to note when someone (particularly someone like Sorkin) avoids turning their work into some cheap kick in the shins to their political opposition. The story is played as straight as possible and avoids the barbs of today's conflicts. Obviously, this film was made in reaction to the events on and after 9/11, but those connections are left as being inherent and not constantly hammered like one may expect. This gives the film a comfortable appeal for both sides of the aisle. We can watch the film with 20/20 hindsight and are left to consider the implications on our own.

This is a solid piece of storytelling and worth at least one viewing. If you haven't seen it, check it out, seeing Hanks and Hoffman together is worth the price of admission.


Cautions: Like swearing? Like swearing done very effectively? If so, this movie is for you. Tons of cursing permeate this movie. To be fair, the swearing is a natural byproduct of the characters, and it is cleverly peppered in the script. This said, some audience members may be offended. If the swearing disturbs you then I won't bother going into the nudity, sexual discussions and other adult content that makes up a majority of the narrative.


Worldview: Charlie Wilson defies his personality and his history to push for a covert war that served to give the Soviets a well deserved kick in their collectivist rumps. This covert war also seeded the Islamofacist movement we're battling today. Watching Wilson lopping the head off the foreign policy hydra seems to show the futility of rising above our human nature and doing "the right thing". Despite the claims of morons everywhere, people aren't inherently good - we're bad. Humans do the darnedest things and when I say "darnedest" I mean the most vile and despicable acts of craven self-interest. When we choose to do good (and I selected the word "choose" intentionally), when its not done to satisfy personal ends, we are casting aside our natures and attempting to live beyond ourselves. We know ultimately everything we do in this life will pass and most things we set right will eventually turn wrong once again. The point here is to keep doing what is right, what is good. For when we do good, we elevate ourselves to be more like God. Trying to be more like God may be as futile as standing on your tiptoes in an effort to be as tall as the Sears Tower, but every little bit does count. Our machinations are as flawed as we are and doing the right thing is a slippery proposition because the facts on the ground tend to change over time. Even knowing our good may spoil (as they did in this case), we are still asked to do our best. God knows we are faulty, broken by sin. This is why he has plans for us to be perfected. Before the mending comes our task is to fight our impulses and do as much good as we can, while we can.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galatians 6:9

For you non-believers, think of it this way, if there's no afterlife, then all that will remain of you is the fleeting memory by those near you. You will be remembered for your actions. Your acts today decide your obituary tomorrow. Will the summation of your life be positive or negative? Charlie Wilson may have been a bad man but it is his good acts that will really define him. Even a bad man who despite himself does the right thing is preferable to good men are virtuous but who do nothing.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Monsters and Critics
Film Critics United

Labels: film, Julia Roberts, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks

Star Wars changed everything – literally. The landscape of Hollywood was turned on its ear with the monster success of the first Star Wars film in summer of 1977. Moreover, the film’s marketing and licensing revolutionized Hollywood, leaving nothing untouched in its wake. George Lucas’ homage to Joseph Campbell’s book Hero of a Thousand Faces has broken beyond its celluloid borders and entered into being our modern mythology.

Even if you hate that flaky Skywalker and those stupid robots, one has to admit the full power of these films and the broad effect they have had on world culture. While this influence has not always been good (as a Christian, I have serious regrets of the language used to describe “The Force”,) but in many instances a positive can be culled.

Let’s take a gander at the films these vital films...well the first film from 1977 is vital the two that followed were just great fun and the last (or first) trio released in past few years...well, the first film was vital.

For you geeks, pull out your Boba Fett doll, strap on your Stormtrooper helmet, and enjoy the show!

STAR WARS: EPISODE IV – A NEW HOPE (1977)

The technical marvels of the film overshadow the unmitigated disaster found in the dialog and acting. When Harrison Ford is stealing the show, you know you’ve cast some weak actors.

What really can be said about this film other than it will outlive us all. This is our modern myth and our grandchildren’s grandchildren will know who Darth Vader is. We can only hope they have no idea who Jar-Jar Binks is (more on that in a bit.)

As a stand-alone piece this film passes with flying colors. It is nearly the perfectly structured film. Unfortunately, Lucas wrote the dialog which means you have some seriously childish lines. There is a term in screenwriting circles, “On the nose” dialog. On the nose, refers to dialog which a character says either exactly what they’re doing. “Look out, I’ve got a bomb!” or what they are thinking “Hey, that bomb makes me frightened – oh, I’ve wet myself!” On the nose dialog is obscenely distracting and amateurish. Every film George Lucas gets his hands on is wall to wall “on the nose” dialog. The upside is that even children can enjoy his films, the downside is that only children think the dialog is clever.

If you have never seen this film, you should ask a friend to help lift up that rock you’ve been living under and rent the darn thing.

STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980)

Hands down, this is the best of the Star Wars offerings. If you disagree, not only are you wrong and you do not have permission to finish reading these reviews. Go away.

No, I mean it – leave.

It is as if the adults took over the franchise for just once. This is the serious, grown-up Star Wars your mother warned you about. Dark, brooding and atmospheric, this thing is a joy. This is how sequels were meant to be – as good as the first in many respects and superior in the rest. I love this film as an individual piece. Tell me where the flaw in this piece is? Huh? Can you? No! If you think you can, read the ending of the previous paragraph.

Even if you’re not a fan of this film, you have to give it some points for introducing the coolest bad guy in science fiction – Boba Fett. The guys’ got wrist rockets and a jetpack! How can anyone not love this film? How can you not love this film? Ahhh! Forget it! You’re hopeless!

…oh wait…there is that thing about Frank Oz and that Muppet…okay, so the piece isn't perfect. You can come back. I’m sorry.

STAR WARS: EPISODE VI – THE RETURN OF THE JEDI (1983)

It should have been titled The Receding of Han’s Hairline. Apparently, they don’t have hair plugs in a galaxy far, far away.

I am a huge fan of the fight scene at Jabba’s pleasure barge. I can watch it over and over and be thrilled by it each time. The handling of multiple battles and the editing work wonderfully. I do have to admit a raging anger that sets in though whenever I see Boba Fett biting the big one in such a lame way. C’mon, give the guy his due!

There are many things to recommend this film. The play of: Luke and Leia’s relationship works well. The action sequences on the moon of Endor are effective and hold one’s attention. The final standoff between the Skywalkers is certainly satisfying. But no matter how great this film is, even if this was another Citizen Kane, one thing cuts through all of the positives…

Ewoks.

I hate Lucas.

The man is a childish hack at heart and I have the Ewoks to prove it.

STAR WARS: EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999)

Or otherwise known as “How To Ruin A Perfectly Good Franchise 101”.

Answer: Jar-Jar Binks!

Question: How does a dimwit make something more offensive than Ewoks?

The only menace here is the sycophants surrounding Lucas. Didn’t one of them have the fortitude to tell him that his best ideas occurred thirty years ago?

This film is beyond a disappointment. There is nothing of value here. It doesn’t do a good job of setting up a new trilogy, it doesn’t buttress the first trilogy, and it certainly can’t stand on its own. What a mess!

There is one single interesting piece to this film – Darth Maul. He is a great secondary antagonist. Lucas’ design team created the devil incarnate for this film. What does Lucas do when his protagonist comes across a perfectly ominous villain? He kills the perfect bad guy!

I hate Lucas.

Maul was a brilliant character. Almost no words pass his lips – he is animalistic, haunting and looks like Satan. What else can you ask for? Well…Boba Fett (the guy’s got wrist rockets!) Beyond him, what can you ask for? If Lucas wasn’t such a hack at heart, he would have seen that he could have stretched the Darth Maul character into the other films and created something to rival Vader.

This, by far, is the weakest of the Star Wars films. This is the Godfather III of the franchise.

STAR WARS: EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002)

Something smells like Dooku.

The thrill is gone.

Lucas dropped the ball with Episode I. He can barely muster the ability to pick it up with this film. While this movie is a far improvement over the first episode, it is a shallow stand-in for what could have been. This probably would have been a far better film if it hadn’t the first episode’s failure to content with.

I appreciated, of course, he explanation of Boba Fett’s origin. Although, like Darth Maul, I think Jango Fett’s death was a waste. Who made the decision to bump that guy off?

I hate Lucas.

I believe this film did not do a good job of fully setting up the final film. We know what is coming. This film did nothing to leave any open questions for us to ponder. We know what will become of Skywalker. A talented filmmaker would have gone to the trouble of setting up enough sub-plots to give the audience something to look forward to, for example, one may have thought about developing a great bad guy over two films which the hero will have to content with, (Darth Maul anyone?) We are left just like we were walking into the film Titanic. We know the ending before we begin. What is the point?



PG-13? What is Lucas thinking? Empire was a very dark film and it managed a PG. These films are for kids! Only a hack would think it is acceptable to introduce the kind of content that forces a PG-13 rating. Remember that PG-13 movies used to be called “soft R’s” in the old days. Lucas has squandered the most important film series in human history on a whim.

I hate Lucas.

With his limp love story and feckless subplots in place, Lucas charges headlong into the final film of the Star Wars franchise. As with the other recent Star Wars films the cast of thin characters perform tasks and recite dialog but ultimately don't do much. The first three films have been waiting for the rise of Darth Vader, at long last he comes.

This is the best of the first three Star Wars films but that isn't saying much. Its like claiming that you're the least crazy member of the Jackson family - you're still crazy. This film when set apart from the first Star Wars disasters is reasonably good. However, The first act is a scattered mess of forced action to allow for the linking of the film to video game products. The opening in particular has nothing to do with anything. It establishes some plot points and opens some character interaction but the whole sequence is so overwhelmed by so much useless fighting and peril that it rings hollow when it is complete. Darth Dooku, who was vacant for much of the previous film only to show up at the end like Christopher Lee was late for the shoot, is present at the opening of this piece. Then he's bumped off. His death is completely meaningless. We don't know this guy from Adam, we never come to understand his motivations or anything of use about his past. He's a human prop that gets thrown aside when the plot is through with him. Then Lucas introduces Dooku's replacement as the dispensable villain, General Grievous. Again, another soulless bad guy who's not fully explained, developed or interesting. He's simply there for a Jedi to fight later on. Yawn.

The film continues on the same course as the previous two from this point. Abstract threats arise, people talk and do things but the thrust of the movie is lost since there is little motivating interest in the conflicts. We get some beautiful and complex special effects and battle sequences but they are as deep as the average video game. Everything is without content. Its like a film made of empty calories.

Everything changes in the final act. The film picks up steam, the characters have something to do and FINALLY have purpose. The moment Anakin makes his choice to turn to the dark side the film has meaning and becomes more solemn.

The final act is good enough to make up for the listless opening three-fourths of the film. The actors come into their own and the special effects and fight sequences take on a more serious tone. It is as if a real movie has trespassed on a crappy one. A word of caution, the final injuries to Anakin are gruesome and needlessly so. Trust me, the younger members of the audience do not need to see the horrible fate that awaits the troubled pre-Vader. If you haven't seen this film and watch it with children, be mindful of the final lightsaber battle. The fight takes place around lava for a reason.

Overall, the film is satisfying not because it is a good film in itself, but because of the original trilogy. With the final act of this film we are given what all fans of the franchise have always wanted, a Star Wars prequel.


Related Reviews:
Other franchises
The Alien Franchise (1979-2004)
The Lord of the Rings Franchise (2001-2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Episode I - Chicago Reader
Episode II - PopMatters
Episode III - Creative Loafing
The Real Star Wars - Roger Ebert
The Empire Strikes Back - Movie Hamlet
Friggin Ewoks - ReelViews

Labels: Carrie Fisher, film, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, movie review, Star Wars

Short Review: The trash heap.

Little more than a disposable, soulless, horror flick. Rich white American college kids go to Mexico and meet a rich German guy. The gang then heads out to some ruins where the German guy's brother is working on a archaeological dig. They arrive at the ruins to find the locals are all nervous and angry. The locals are all appropriately dingy, violent and reactionary. Remember that in the movies, Mexicans are generally treated like dirtier versions of American southerners - its only whites (and select friends) from the coasts who are clean, happy and smart. Hollywoof social policies aside, the whole point here is that there is something in the ruins and our hapless college kids are going to find it. Yawn.

The only good things I can say about this film is that it doesn't drag on too long, and it avoids the sanguine torture scenes so prevalent in horror movies today. If you're looking for mindless horror, you can do worse than this. If you're looking for something that is actually good, you will need to look elsewhere. Its as frivolous as it looks.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Thing (1982)
28 Days Later (2002)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Movie Cynics

Labels: film, horror, Jena Malone, Joe Ansderson, Jonathan Tucker, movie review

Short Review: This film is about a suicide bomber with a heart of gold. He only murders the innocent civilians that REALLY have it coming.


We follow the journey of Said and Khaled, two Palestinian losers who go from being shiftless mechanics to determined suicide bombers. Kais Nashefis offers one of the most striking cinematic debuts in recent memory as the brooding, troubled, Said. It is fascinating to watch his performance as a man following his faith into oblivion while his desires for Earthly things tug at his heart. His counterpart Ali Suliman provides a rock-solid supporting performance as Khaled, a more personable but equally determined young man. The performances in this film are truly brilliant. Like every other aspect (with the exception of worldview) of this film, the acting is raw and natural - very realistic and believable. You can see these two young men growing up with one another and you can see them getting lost in the theological net of modern day terrorism.

The problem I have with writer/director Hany Abu-Assad’s film is that it appears to be peaceful but it is not. While it does offer what is presumptively the human rights angle of the argument, “Hey, maybe blowing up innocent people on the way to the mall is a bad thing” it doesn’t commit to that ideal. Khaled and Said are sent on a mission to blow themselves up but fail. After some chasing each other around Palestine, the two return to their terrorist bosses. Said is told he cannot go out for another mission and he should return home. Then, in one of the film’s strongest moments, Said opens himself up and explains his desire to kill Israelis. He then falls into a litany of blame and suspicion that permeates the film. The disturbed Said blames Israel for the death of his father even though his own people executed the man. Said wishes to exact his revenge on the innocent people of Israel. He is allowed to do so. In the end of the film Khaled is talked out of igniting his bomb laden body and returns home crying. Said is committed and performs the act. To show Said is a good man, he decides not to get on a bus with a small girl running around in the aisle. He waits for one with just adults. What a guy.

Hany Abu-Assad allows his character to commit a crime against humanity, and showing this without absolute condemnation is inexcusable. Regardless of the masterful way this film was made and regardless of the faint recognition that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are wrong, this film fails to take the moral stand that it flat out wrong to murder innocents. This failure makes this film disgusting.

This film won the Amnesty International Film Prize in 2005. We have real people blowing themselves up and killing real innocent people. If Hany Abu-Assad is incapable of condemning these acts without equivocation he doesn’t deserve a moment’s notice. If Amnesty International is willing to cherish his moral failure they don’t deserve their status. The troubles in Palestine and Israel are deep and harsh. This film does nothing to help in that struggle. This film pretends to support peace, but it supports the opposite. What this film offers in spades however, is a story of oppression and anti-Israeli sentiment.

A final note for Christians. A special slap in the face waits for you in this film. When their terrorist handlers are preparing the two suicide bombers for their murderous work, they are all treated to a final meal. When the group sits down to eat, we are presented with a shot of that replicates da Vinci’s The Last Supper. The two suicide bombers, with bomb belts strapped on, sit in the center framed by their handlers. If you remember the painting, this places the two suicide bombers in place of Jesus Christ in the composition. Nice. Thanks for that.

Overall, this film makes a strong statement, but fails to actually say anything positive. It does give a sense of the Palestinian side of the issue but doesn’t look down on the tactics that side has developed. For that reason I cannot recommend this film. This is a shame because it is very well done.


Related Reviews:
Terrorist movies
Munich (2005)
Right at Your Door (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
Roger Ebert

Labels: film, Hany Abu Assad, Kais Nashefis, movie review, terrorism

The piece certainly isn't breaking new ground. How many films can we have about civil rights "firsts"? Well a dozen or so as it turns out. This plays the typical formula: blacks get their first shot at something because a white guy sticks his neck out. Like most of films of this nature, it seems to be more about how heroic the white guy is, rather than about the blacks defeating bigotry. If you can swallow the pill this film offers it is a well structured piece that does entertain. You will get the feeling you've seen this before however.


Related Reviews:
Sports movies
Mystery, Alaska (1999)
The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Christian Spotlight On The Movies