Realmscapes

Pastime (1991)

Despite the film's promotional material, this film isn't a story about racism. Yeah, it plays a role, but this is 1957 California--which means we aren't on the front lines of the Southern race wars, and Jackie Robinson has already broken the race barrier down in Major League Baseball a decade earlier.

Pastime is a story about legacy... self-worth... self-respect... tact... the value of the whole life journey... and finding humour and the best light in unfavorable situations.

This is my favorite sports/baseball film after Field of Dreams and The Natural, and it might even rank before that last one on many days.

This film has much sentimental value to me as well as being one of three films that my Dad and I loved to watch together every year (the other two being April Morning and An American Christmas Carol, both of which I will review at another time). 

There really isn't much else I can say about the film. It's simple, and yet even today I can find new layers and value to its story when I watch it. This is a great father/son film, filled with excellent teaching moments. (And be sure to watch for some cool cameos by baseball legends like Bob Feller, Ernie Banks, Duke Snider, Don Newcombe, Bill Mazeroski and Harmon Killebrew!)

GRADE: A+

The Eagle (2011)

Given all the bad reviews this film got I am not sure that critics really like (or understand) the various classical aspects of filmmaking or storytelling any longer. The primary criticisms were a lack of violence (these are the same people that screech at the top of their lungs about the bloodlust in video games) and the wooden acting of the lead. Bunk...all of it.

The Eagle feels like an old-school 50s production in its execution. Lots of gorgeous cinematography (the film was shot in the same country where most of its setting takes place--Scotland) and cool story moments (like Mark Strong's cameo). Having a relative unknown in the lead kept that character's integrity fully in-tact. I don't know how the book reads (yet), but the film version of The Eagle of the Ninth is a really tight story that doesn't rely on action most of the time. That kind of movie-making in this genre is pretty rare these days, and refreshing. (I shouldn't be surprised given the heavy British representation on the crew.)

I wholly agree with these observations from one Amazon.com reviewer:

"Of the three movies made about the Lost Legion in the last few years, "The Eagle" is probably the grittiest and most realistic -- there are no glorious battles, Hollywoodized Celts or Arthuriana. Instead, director Kevin Macdonald fills the movie with mud, rain, cold pale light, grimy little outposts, frenetic small battles and the spare expanses of Scotland.

And for the most part, the movie succeeds. It's a small, lean movie with a lot of underlying tension, and some hauntingly atmospheric scenes like the Seal People's firelit ceremonies, complete with a horned-god figure and lots of dancing/chanting. Also a nice touch: all the Britons speak Gaelic. It isn't entirely accurate, but is a nice change after countless movies where everybody speaks English. Even better, there are no subtitles, so we're as lost as Aquila whenever they speak."

Also of note was Atli Örvarsson's atmospheric score and the lively audio mix that was on par with King Arthur and other such high-budget blockbuster period pieces.

Maybe there wasn't enough America-hate in it (how often we are compared to the Roman Empire), or maybe they believe audiences no longer care about 'absolutes' in characters. The Eagle is a story of a journey for closure and the importance of one's personal and familial reputation. There is great honor on that over-arc.

And although there were some cliches and 'Hollywood moments' scattered throughout, these can be forgiven by way of the overall integrity of the story execution and wonderful attention to the beauty of The Highlands.

In the end I think the most telling of all the elements are the close-minded "Seal people" (who execute small children for be-friending outsiders, be they Roman or Celt) and the value of not judging a person by their actions and not those of others associated with that person who have wronged you. 

GRADES  (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):

Film: A-
Blu-ray: A- (video), A+ (audio), B- (extras--the commentary's interesting but the director isn't terribly engaging and there's no main cast insight; check out the alternate ending!)

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

This was a real pleasant surprise. Initially I wasn't going to see it because I thought it was going to be another critical/cynical Hollywood anti-God study. Until I happened to hear otherwise from the Issues Etc. podcast talking about it and gave it a shot. I'm glad I did.

The Adjustment Bureau is nothing more than filmmakers pondering questions about God: Does He give us free will, or is it an illusion? Does He plan every detail of our destinies? Does He change His mind?

All questions that Christians--or at the least theists and agnostics--wonder about. This film doesn't necessarily answer those questions, but it does provide an interesting commentary and potential conclusion via a well-executed and acted story where we can all engage in a healthy discussion without disrespecting God's sovereignty as Creator and God of the universe.

Christians don't accept chance in our lives, something that is accepted in the realm of the story, although "chance" might also be how the Bureau agents describe the things they aren't party to regarding a person's future. That aside, I think the vital clue that this film's over-arcing message is squarely in line with God's Word in Job and Psalms is the role of water in the story, which directly impacts events via Brooklyn's East River and a rainstorm during the final act of the story. What do you think...?

GRADES  (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):

Film: A-
Blu-ray: A- (video), A+ (audio), B (extras--the only thing of value really is the commentary)

Inception (2010)

On one hand it's a fantastic story about guilt--how it can destroy you and how to get on a path away from the destruction. Guilt has a long track record of bending reality to the point that the victim no longer knows friend from enemy, right from wrong, good from bad.

From a political point of view, the film describes liberalism pretty dang well. From man-made  global warming to entitlement programs, the government and its agents create quite the elements for a utopia. But it's a dream world, through and through. And the worst part of it all is trying to convince a person who has bought into the state-run dreamscape that their world isn't real. Trying to burst that bubble is equivalent to taking a defiant child out of a toy store. Ultimately, for the one that succumbs to this non-reality, there is little hope of rescue--pretty well depicted the film by the "state of limbo" that the main cast fears very deeply given its reputation for little hope of rescue.

But the real problem is that the film's value as an authority or morality implodes because it's built on a premise of illegal activity and unethical behavior. This is disappointing given Nolan's strong moral compass in his other films, namely The Prestige and his The Dark Knight (Batman) trilogy.

A special note must be made about Zimmer's score. The man seems to always find new ways to express his musical genius when it matters. But I do not think this is a score that can be bought as single-purchase tracks. It is one body of work.

Inception is a house built on sand, and I don't know if I will ever bring myself to own it because of this. But it's a pretty house that raises valuable questions about what is reality, what we prefer it to be, and the damage preference can be over acceptance.

GRADE (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player)

Film: B
Blu-ray: A+ (video), A+ (audio), A (extras--notably includes a feature commentary with Nolan and crew, a motion comic expanding on the main character's background via the 'Cobol job', a documentary on dreams, and Hans Zimmer's moody electronica-flavored score) 

2010 Film/TV: Year in Review

Movies We Anticipated (Pre-Release):

Other Films of Interest (Post-Release; seen/no longer interested):

Alice in Wonderland, Edge of Darkness, Extraordinary Measures, Inception, Knight & Day, Legendary, Percy Jackson & the Olympians, Red, The Book of Eli, The Ghost Writer, The Lovely Bones, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, To Save a Life, TRON: Legacy

Final Analysis:
Yet to be completed... Nominations are subject to change as additional films are screened.

FILM AWARDS (click the link below the winners list to see a full list of the nominees):

Best Picture:
Best Picture in a Genre:
Best Original Screenplay:
Best Adapted Screenplay:  
Best Action Sequence:
Best Score:
Best Original Song:  
Best Ensemble Cast:  
Best Actor:  
Best Actress:
Best Supporting Actor:
Best Supporting Actress:  
Best Cameo:
Best Tough Guy:
Best Onscreen Couple:
Best Poster Art Series: 

Thomas Kinkade's The Christmas Cottage (2008)

Let's get something said straight off the bat: this film was one of the finest supporting performances I've seen, and one of Peter O'Toole's finest period. He was the absolute catalyst, conscience, and integrity of this story, which is partly autobiographical concerning its subject: Thomas Kinkade, the Painter of Light.

The true-to-life film stays put within the timeframe of a couple of weeks before Christmas (in 1978) in the life of the artist in his hometown, so it is difficult to criticize the plot. But one element that is quickly drawn out: the town is hurting, a shadow of its implied former glory--much like Radiator Springs in Disney/Pixar's Cars. And not just the town, but the people residing within. A father still grieves for his son, killed in Vietnam; the town loafer feels less than useful beyond his gossip services; the beauty queen is relegated with little else to do but flirt her way to another beauty crown far beneath her aspirations to be an actress; an electrician and snooty church couple have relegated Christmas to a holiday lighting competition; a renowned artist is utterly failing to deal with the physical limitations of old age and the passing of his true love.

Young Thomas Kinkade's life is hardly a happy place to be. His father has ditched his family for an opportunity to run a pizzeria in Sacramento (not an hour away); his mother has lost her job and is weeks away from losing the family home (unbeknownst to her two children, or anyone else); Thom's love interest would have him shake Placerville from his soles and move to the city where she believes his art talents can be only appreciated.

There are so many lines of utter beauty in this film--mostly delivered by Peter O'Toole's "Glen"--that one could keep a Facebook status busy for a week:

• "Don't reduce art to something about the artist. Art isn't about the artist it is about life."
• "Art should bring emotion that can topple tyranny."
• "[Art] is the chance to illuminate where you live, to inspire your neighbors."
• "Do you think that because [your neighbors] aren't sophisticated they don't deserve your best art?"
• "[If] you are willing really to see with your eyes and your heart, one image can change lives; you can introduce men to their souls."

That last quote really made me consider Kinkade's critics. The hundreds  (thousands?) who believe that Kinkade isn't a "true artist" because he has successfully commercialized his art, bringing it to millions. And what's worse, Kinkade is a man of deep Christian faith and American patriotism--two marks wholly out of favour with the sophisticated art connoisseur. They claim that his art is unnatural; that the homes look like they are comically ablaze with fire from within, while light with "no source" reflects upon exterior landscapes.

What these critics do not grasp, by want or ignorance, is that Thomas Kinkade does not paint the light of science. These critics have long stopped believing in miracles or the True Light that is God. They see life as drab, something to suffer. Dark. They do not see Kinkade's art with their eyes AND their heart; they do not want to be (re)introduced with their souls--or the One who created them. Thomas Kinkade paints a light that they cannot comprehend, and so to them it is rubbish and spiritually diabetic; Kinkade's painted light is idyllic and joyous, emotions they are no longer in touch with. Their attitude recalls Jesus admonition to us all in John 3:19-21.

The light Kinkade paints was glimpsed on a mountain of transfiguration and on Easter morning; it was seen by shepherds and wise men; it was experienced by ordinary men with tongues of flame on their heads so that they might inspire us to see the plan of the God of grace and truth. This light manifests itself to our neighbor through acts of love and charity, of illuminated truth and inspiration. This light consumes the person and their environment like a bonfire because it is the Light of Christ. The light in our lives that appears to have no source is in fact light from The Source shining on his creation and making everything within its rays radiate with beauty, reflecting its Source.

This film puts all of this into action. It throws light into the dark corners of the lives of the people of 1978 Placerville. Watching the light play across their faces as they crawl out of their hibernation is a joy. The movie is built upon a simple concept hardly foreign to storytelling, but it is a concept too often poorly executed in two-dimensional contexts or in innumerable shades of diluted politically-correct grey.

The Christmas Cottage squarely identifies the Christian faith as life-changing light, and its critics largely echo the same mantra as Kinkade's. No matter. Even with the story's largely predictable course, it's a path that is more than relevant; it is a path populated with people and events serving as necessary reminders each Christmas that inspiration need not always extend over the horizon. And don't forget about the light of the sky breaking through the dark forest.

GRADES (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):

Film: A+
Blu-ray: B+ (video), A (audio), A- (extras--includes a feature commentary with Thomas Kinkade and deleted scenes, but the rest of the extras felt a bit thin on content)

Robin Hood (2010)

The critics deadpanned this addition to the Robin Hood film library, choosing to mostly focus on Crowe's "incorrect" accent and lament the sacking of the original script that saw the Sheriff as the hero and Robin as the villain. Reviews like that immediately set off alarm bells that perhaps these nitpickings were smoke screens. Afterall, who was alive in the late 12th century to tell us that the persona didn't have an Irish or Welsh flavoured accent? Why should the Robin Hood legend bow to 21st century story-telling conventions that grey villains and make heroes out to be the real misguided folk? (Although ironically the latter isn't far from today's truth.)

 Having seen and throuroughly enjoyed the version that was actually made, I understand why H-wood was disappointed. Crowe's "Robin" isn't championing the redistribution of wealth and stands up for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--the very ideals that would lead to the Magna Carta (the patriarch to America's own founding documents).The only other Robin Hood film to do this was 1938's The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn.

Cate Blanchette brings as much gravitas to the Marian role as did Olivia de Havilland in '38. She's no easy mark for Robin and it takes the full length of the film for Robin to turn her eyes in a way that isn't a distrustful glare. I thought the touch at the end may have been a bit of a cow-tow to feminism and unrealistic to the period, but it was tasefully handled and in no way detracted from the story.

My biggest gripe with the story was Scott's disappointing representation of the Crusades in film (again) and Richard's wars with the French. It's especially disappointing given the filmmaker's clear love for the long ago. I don't know.. maybe the studio forces such a period film to be sure to criticize the Crusades and be apologetic about Europe's role.

The opening title card tells us that the film starts after King Richard has returned from his "plundering" during the Third Crusade and is making war on the French, who decided to take some of his lands while he was gone (under the duplitious watch of King Phillip, an ever present rival of Richard's throughout most of his life). In the case of the latter events--umm, isn't Richard simply being a good king by making war on those who would steal from him?

But in the case of the Crusade, Scott lingers a bit longer, making sure that the audience knows that in his opinion, the killing of 2500 Muslims at Acre was "godless". The interesting thing here is that Scott would have us infer that the majority of those killed were women and children (quite the opposite) and that he simply killed them for no reason (untrue). In both cases, Scott stands at odds with most historians! But that isn't even the most important of the case.

Within the context of the time, it is the concensus of scholars that Richard had little choice but to kill the prisoners. First, because he was leaving Acre and he couldn't have the men (who comprised the majority of the prisoners) joining up with Saladin to fight against him. Second, because Saladin had been stalling for time to regain his strength for an attack, and was playing games withan agreed upon prisoner exchange. Third, the prisoner exchange (which was to include the True Cross captured at Hattin) technically had been agreed to by a lesser-officer without Saladin's kowledge and it wasn't an agreement he particulary liked. And fourth, Richard may have wanted a bit of revenge for the hundreds of Templar and Hospitaller captives that Saladin had had beheaded (by amateur soldiers no less) following Hattin.

The most interesting of all is that records, written by a known Muslim archivist of Saladin's army, speaks of the Acre incident very matter-of-factly.. as if he understood the decision and would have done likewise in a similar position of war. And later on, when Richard and Saladin come to terms at Jaffa, they deal with each other honorably--as if the Acre incident wasn't so much of an issue. This is significant given the long memory of the Muslim warrior.

Although the film bows the head a bit to modern filmmaking conventions (e.g. the Crusades were simply white Christian guys looting the world, killing "innocent" Muslims along the way, and robbing the Islamic community of its rightful lands--as if the Muslim community had been living in the Holy Land since the Creation), it's refreshing to see a modern filmmaker get the Robin Hood legend closer to historical than any other. It was interesting to see a film that told a bit of a prequel than the story everyone mosly knows. Crowe's Robin Hood fits quite nicely beside my Errol Flynn version.

GRADES (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):

Film: A- (theatrical version)
Blu-ray: A (video), A+ (audio), B+ (extras--no commentary from Scott, Crowe, and/or Blanchette?!; good 1 hr making-of though)

G.I.JOE: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

In their rush for "cool" this production forgot everything else. Hasbro made a mistake green-lighting this politically-correct production and premise. The only thing more laughable than the dialogue and casting an an anti-war actor in the lead role ("Duke") was the fact that Paris (specifically the Eiffel Tower) was the only city the producers felt bold enough to attack. (Honorable mention would be the redesigning of the original Cobra Commander's headgear, which the production felt was too close to the KKK mask--I fail to see the problem here since Commander is a villain(!).)

Unforgivable is another film wasting Cristopher Eccleston's considerable talents even worse than The Seeker did (a film I like actually); Ray Park as one of the franchise's most popular characters ("Snake Eyes") was given nothing to do beyond a few basic martial arts moves and an opponent that was no where near the equal the film would have you think. And if you have to turn the Baroness good just to keep the gorgeous Siena Miller from being boo-ed, then cast her as a hero so you can maintain the integrity of the property! Arnold Vosloo, Jonathan Pryce, and Brendan Fraser were wasted cameos. Dennis Quaid didn't fair much better (but at least was somewhat entertaining as super-John Wayne).

Particularly maddening is the disrespectful manner this film portrays the original G.I.JOE franchise. I was never a close follower of the property, but I know enough to see a terribly missed opportunity. I can understand the want to remove the American-exclusivity from the property in order to make it more appealing to an international audience.

But with Cobra already cast as a terrorist organization (albeit one with no apparent ideology or purpose beyond chaos and war-profit), the film could have become a brilliant monument to the nations unified in their fight against terrorist organizations AND their instigators/suppliers (which would be Cobra's role, complete with Russian, Middle Eastern, Venezuelan, Chinese and North Korean characters as Cobras or  Cobra allies--manipulated or wiling--to get the point across).

Iron Man had no problems portraying the Muslim terrorist onscreen, and thus G.I.JOE should have had no problems either. Particularly rousing would have been seeing the G.I.JOE team help out (or even better, partner with) a NATO team in Afghanistan. Granted the over-the-top nature of the film would have needed to be significantly pared down for this to take place out of respect of those units, but I am sure it would have worked as one hell of a morale booster on the war front as much as the home fronts thus making this concession more than worth it.

I have enough curiosity in what a different writing and directing team will do with round 2 to keep an eye on the sequel, but if it appears headed down the same unimaginative and cowardly path as the Transformers follow-up, I'll be a-skipping it without question just as I did Revenge of The Fallen.

GRADES (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):

Film: D
Blu-ray: A- (video), A+ (audio), N/A (extras)

Angels & Demons (2009)

Having read the book, I was really looking forward to the film adaptation and how they would handle certain plotlines.

The first thing I can confirm is that the Vatican's knee-jerk reaction to the film, based on its deeply critical view of the authour, was entirely unwarranted and allowed the whole production the opportunity to be on the "high road" of the debate. In many ways the film is much tamer than Dan Brown was in the book--even *gasp* sympathetic--and yet the film still gets across its primary commentary on the "Faith VS Science". I won't get into that debate here since I address it rather completely in the above book review.

What disappointed me was how much the antagonist was stripped of a lot of the baggage that really made the character so intriguing (and tragic) in the book. I am aware that not everything of a character's book backstory can make its way into the film version, but there was some excellent material for that character that was left unrevealed and should have been included in the extended version (which sadly is mostly just extra violent material that was cut so that the film could keep its PG13 rating).

Also taking a major hit was the assassin, who in the book is a descendant of the Hashshashin, a Shia Muslim sect that became legendary for their deadly skills during the Crusades. Clearly the filmmakers were trying to be political correct, which I can't understand since I would think that the terrorists would like a character that goes around killing Catholic priests. But by being linguine-spined and scrapping any development of the character, the audience was robbed of a great fight confrontation between he and Langdon at the end. *shrug*

In principle, though, it annoys me. The idea that maybe if we don't address the Muslim/Christian confrontation, from a standpoint where the Muslim side loses, so that maybe they will stop blowing things up is ludicrous. JK Rowling addresses this kind of egregious societal decision spot-on in the Harry Potter series; it is also very well articulated in the Star Wars: New Jedi Order series chronicling the Yuuzhan Vong invasion of the "galaxy far far away".

Overall, I was very happy with the effort and pleasantly surprised at the above-average respect the film showed for the Christian faith in general. In fact, I like the film's ending much better than the book's (which made sure to give the victory to science). And I fully agree with the film's premise: that science and faith need not be at war since both are gifts to us from our Creator.

GRADES (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):

Film: A-
Blu-ray: A+ (video), A (audio), A- (extras)

2009 Film/TV: Year in Review

Movies We Anticipated (Pre-Release):

Other Films of Interest (Post-Release; seen/no longer interested):
Dorian Gray, Knowing, Monsters vs Aliens, Night at the Museum 2, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Public Enemies, The Road, Up

Final Analysis:
Yet to be completed... Nominations are subject to change as additional films are screened.

FILM AWARDS (click the link below the winners list to see a full list of the nominees):

Best Picture:  The Blind Side
Best Picture in a Genre:  Up
Best Original Screenplay:  Tomm Moore & Fabrice Ziolkowski , The Secret of Kells
Best Adapted Screenplay:  Steve Kloves, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Best Action Sequence:  "Logan and Victor Through Time", X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Best Score:  Hans Zimmer, Angels & Demons
Best Original Song:  "Almost There", The Princess and the Frog
Best Ensemble Cast:  Sherlock Holmes
Best Actor:  Ed Asner, Up
Best Actress:  Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Supporting Actor:  Zachary Quinto, Star Trek
Best Supporting Actress:  Helen Mirren, Inkheart
Best Cameo:  William Shatner, Fanboys
Best Tough Guy:  Christian Bale, Terminator Salvation
Best Onscreen Couple:  Kevin James & Jayma Mays, Paul Blart: Mall Cop
Best Poster Art Series: Star Trek