Season of Change

"He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him" -Daniel 2:21-22

Along with the new season of Fall outside has come a new season within for me. What has begun in the summer has only grown and matured till it has become unavoidable. A season of change is at hand for me. The reason I am sharing it here, is that it will effect this blog.

I work full-time at Mosaic Church as the Ministries Director and my life for the last three years has been devoted and submitted to that body of Christ. Pastor Mario asked me back in 2005 to join the team, and we planted the church in 2007. Since then, I have given of my life to begin building the foundations and ministries that make it up. While I'd be the first to admit that I wasn't exactly experienced enough for the job, the last three years have been filled with grace, mercy, patience, and miraculous growth. How Pastor Mario (and God ultimately) ever thought they could trust me with essentials of a ministry is beyond me. Looking back over the three years, it's plain to see my faults and shortcomings and how the Lord has smoothed them out and still grown our fellowship.

During this time I was able to establish this website and begin working on my desires to review films, create film lists that interested me, and share my thoughts with the world. While my blogging has always been off and on, my film watching has always been steady. I love watching, analyzing, and talking about films. In fact, during a hard season of my Christian faith, it was the cinema and films like Adaptation, Lost in Translation, The Passion of the Christ, The Return of the King (and several more) that God used to speak to me, teach me, and guide me in ways that sermons and bible studies couldn't do. This ultimately developed into a habit (thanks to my local AMC and Regal, as well as Netflix) that consumed hours and hours of my time. I began watching and cataloging hundreds of films a year. In 2005, King Kong became the #1000 film I had ever seen. Now in 2010, I am already at #1967. In less than five years I've seen nearly 1000 films, and that doesn't count re-watches! How many hours, how much time?

While I still enjoy film, I have felt the constant calling of God to begin giving it up and moving into a new season. To accomplish the vision and mission before me, I can no longer spend my time this way. What does that mean for my film life and this site? It means I've already slashed my Netflix account (I've gone from 4 at a time to 2 and just might cancel it), cancelled my Tivo subscription, and will begin cutting back dramatically on the # of films I see in the theatre. It means I won't be purchsing anymore DVDs, and especially not ordering the Kung Fu flicks I wanted to get in for my awards (True Legend, The Legend of Chen Zhen). It means that your likely going to see little to no posts from me (regarding film) on this site for the near future. While it doesn't mean I won't share my thoughts on a couple films for here to there, it does mean that I am not going to purposefully be writing anything up or continuing with any of the projects on my list.

I don't know what the next season will look like for me or this blog; will there be many film posts? Will it become decidedly more spiritual in tone? Will it become a ministry blog? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that when God whispers, one is right to be obedient and make the sacrifice. While it feels like I am giving up something I truly love (perhaps this is why it is being asked of me), I know that God has greater plans for me and I move forward in excitement. My heart has been captured by the vision of the power and importance that the local church offers to the world. My eyes have wondered at the power of Christian discipleship and it's ability to give life to the dead, sight to the blind, and freedom to the oppressed. My mind is constantly overtaken by the challenge of Christian leadership. My ears have heard the call of my Savior to enter into a new season of devotion and sacrifice like I have not experienced before. Will I leave all that so I can continue to watch a film every night?

Perhaps it's silly to write so eloquently about giving up 'film', but it's truly a difficult thing for me. It's something I'm passionate about, and it's something that brings a lot of fulfillment to me. Perhaps when I come out of this new season I'll be able to step back into this world of film again, I don't know. I just might come with a renewed perspective and with more to offer. Or I might never refind my passion. I don't know. What I do know is that God is good and it is wise to listen to his voice. Where it takes me I don't know, but with him I will go.

p.s Thank you to everyone who has read/commented and shared my site with others. Thank you especially to Scott Mendelson who has linked to and promoted my site several times in places I never expected to get a shout out.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Review

Overall Grade: C+

Playing like an amped up hybrid of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Kung Fu Hustle, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World triumphs when it appropriates the visual cleverness and silliness of the two aforementioned films, but fails in the delivery of its thematic and emotional content. In a film that revels in shorthand references, allow me to reference a tried but true criticism of films like this, "all style and no substance".

Michael Cera plays Scott Pilgrim, a young adult in search of a life and a new girlfriend. At a party he spots Ramona, and attempts at scoring a date with her. He eventually wins out, but there is a catch. Ramona has a bit of a past, and in order to date Ramona, Scott is forced to fight all seven of her evil ex's. You see, Scott has to fight off Ramona's past that keeps catching up to her and ruining her present, get it?

While I will get to my frustrations with the film, let me first commend several of the appealing aspects of this film. First off, the film is crisply edited and thought out. It is constantly moving, with pacing more reminiscent of Crank and framing reminiscent of the anime and arcade. Continuing the video game theme is the sound design and visual effects that are seamlessly integrated into not only the fight sequences, but throughout the whole film, including a stop in the restroom. It's topped off with several enjoyable performances including a scene stealing Jason Schwartzman.

What undermines the entire film is the 'weightlessness' of the universe that is ultimately created. While I am willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of an interesting premise (that there exists an super-powered league of ex-boyfriends), I'm not willing to buy into a universe that ultimately doesn't reflect the emotional weight and gravity of the real world. Let me explain further.

In what world, outside of Pilgrim's dreams, would someone like the neurotic, jobless, and mumbling Scott Pilgrim be able to land the relationships that he does? He's able to date a 17 year old high school student, Ramona 'the girl of his dreams' and apparently dated the popular lead singer of hot indie band. The film never provides a good reason for the attraction these girls have to him, and vice versa. At least the film attempts to make the girls good looking, providing some reason for Pilgrim's attraction to them. Redeeming character traits or good personalities are to much to ask for in the stylized world. After several awkward meets, Pilgrim essentially beds the 'girl of his dreams', until she puts an impromptu end to it. Even Pilgrim's gay roommate is shown bedding numerous men, including straight men, with nary a wink. These relationships are so light and meaningless, how does anyone (including the audience) really get upset or that emotional about any of them. Let alone enough to create an entire league of angry ex-boyfriends?

This same 'weightlessness' undermines what are technically proficient fight scenes as well. The film never provides sufficient reason why Pilgrim is able to fight (outside of a DDR game) at the onscreen ability shown, nor is there any gravity to the punches and falls he takes. What should be fun and entertaining (these sequences are better shot than ones in The Expendables, but are ultimately less meaningful) became dull as I just waited for them to play out. Nor is there any real connection made between why the entire universe is overlaid with video game graphics (as interesting as it is), except for the reason as to just be there. What's that? You say I should just look past it, and enjoy it because of the playful spirit?

While that may be true in regards to the fighting, it's unforgiveable when the film attempts real lessons at it's conclusion. In the climax of the film, Pilgrim is supposed to have discovered self respect and thus ultimately that the battles he is fighting in life is not for a 'woman' but for self-respect. While that's cute, it would be nice for the rest of the film to support that conclusion. What has Pilgrim come to respect about himself in the end? He is still the same neurotic, jobless, and mumbling guy as he was before. Even without this little thematic twist, the film still plays out exactly the same as if he was just fighting for the girl/ On top of that, what about Ramona's self respect? Does she have to stand by and watch as a boy fights to free her and earn his self respect? What about all the supporting characters who continue on in self-disrespecting lifestyles filled with vulgarity and cheating? Does real self respect and love exist in a world without gravity?

It's a shame because there is really a lot of good stuff on display in this film. By the climax, I really felt as though the film was exactly what you would get had you handed a geeky film student a large budget to make anything he wanted. What you end up with is a heavily stylized and 'cool' universe that floats along without scrutiny, but ultimately crashes to earth when asked to speak to its real-world audience. It's similar to what people are realizing when it comes to 3-D films these days; while it can certainly add razzle-dazzle to a film, if it doesn't help to 'speak' to a real world audience, then it's just another visual effect.

The Other Guys Mini-Review

Overall Grade: C+

There's a certain point about halfway into The Other Guys when I just stopped caring because it honestly felt like the writers did as well. It's a shame because the first half of the film works pretty well and the jokes are more hit than miss. The problem is, the film just continues to play off the same jokes to diminishing returns.

Why it works in the outset I don't know, but once one realizes that half the jokes revolve around the irony of particular people saying something outlandish, like Michael Keaton making TLC (the band not the channel) references, grandma's talking sexual maneuvers, or Ferrell's quiet mild mannered character going crazy from his pimp past. If this was the first time this kind of humor was on screen then it might sustain itself for an hour and a half, but after a decade of this humor, the irony gets old pretty quickly.

While the film tries to be topical and include 'wall street' villains, it's a shame the film tries to be serious about these villains by the end. In fact, we are treated to a terribly out of context attempt at a lesson in 'wall street' chicanery over the end credits. I don't know why films that thrive on 'stupid' humor with 'stupid' plots, over-simplified villains and cardboard motivations believe they have any type of context from which to tell any lessons. What it confirms to me is that these type of comedies, as long as it thrives on 'stupidity' for its humor are inherently limited.

It's a shame because I'm always looking for one of these comedies to break out and become well-rounded, but perhaps it's a fools errand. Has there ever been a well-rounded stupid comedy that doesn't get long in the tooth? Dumb & Dumber? Anyways, point being, its a hit and miss comedy that starts out strong and wears thin pretty quickly. If thats sufficient enough, you'll have a great time. If not, then prepare for another mixed pleasure.

Inception Review

Overall Grade: A

"We create the world of a dream. We bring a subject into that dream and they fill it with their secrets." Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) explains this key plot point early in the film to newcomer Ariadne (Ellen Page). It's an important description of the dream heists that Inception is based upon, but it's also a good basis for understanding how the film as a whole works, how the director/writer Christopher Nolan put it together, and even on a deeper level, how an audience interacts with a film. While Inception is about as intelligent, entertaining, and imaginative as summer blockbuster's get, its lasting contribution isn't really what someone is going to get out of it, but what someone is willing to put into it. However I think I may be getting ahead of myself here, so let me begin on the surface level.

On the surface, Inception is a marvelously written heist film with a science fiction twist. Instead of stealing money, or artwork, the idea here is to extract corporate ideas within the vault of someone's subconscious. If that sounds terribly un-cinematic, it's not. This isn't a 2 hour art-house drama between an estranged and damaged widower and her psychiatrist taking place in just one shot. Nolan, his art director, and cinematographer transform and translate what could essentially be just conceptual ideas into a true visual feast. We are talking exploding realities, cities turning in on themselves, worlds crumbling, and gravity defying fights; is that visual enough for you? Two twists take this basic plotline and begin the real story that drives Inception.

First, a corporate industrialist Saito (played superbly by Ken Watanabe) wants to hire Cobb and his team not to extract an idea from a rival CEO, but instead to implant an idea. It's a risky venture that would require Cobb and his team to go several layers into the subconscious, risking their lives in the process. Cobb is at first not willing to take the risk, until the second twist comes in, Saito offers Cobb as his reward, the chance to return to the United States and see his children. Essentially offering Cobb the vaunted one last job to make things right. Cobb takes it and sees it as his chance to "come home". Why he's exiled from the US, and why he's estranged from his wife and children are answers the film will later unfold.

These two threads (the act of inception and the emotional journey home to his wife and children) really drive the action and emotion of the entire film. From here we get to see Cobb assemble his team, hatch their plan, and then, for the last half of the film, execute the inception itself. Enough about the plot and surface level stuff, how does it all come together and work as a film?

If it seems I've focused a lot on the plot, it's because this film is packed with it. In fact, it feels at times that the film is probably a little too packed with it. The world, ideas, and storyline that Nolan has created is truly incredible, creative, and intriguing. I have no doubt that the ideas and concepts Nolan explores here will spark a slew of like-minded films within the next few years. However, the world that Nolan creates is so intricate and clever, the forward momentum of plot and action so unstoppable, that the performances and drama of the film struggle to become it's equal.

From the very get go, the film hits the ground and keeps moving from one moment, one place, one idea to the next. It's a torrid pace of storytelling that can leave some behind, but more than likely, serves to wrap one up into the film and its ultimate trajectory. This is a film that starts out running, and picks up momentum as it hurls forward and digs deeper. However, the deeper it goes intellectually, the more distant I felt emotionally.

For instance, while the audience is supposed to care deeply for Cobb's emotional 'Journey Home' and reconciliation with his children and wife, the movie never takes the time to bond us with this family. While the film revels in slowly revealing the hidden secrets behind his family, it never revels in revealing to us what was so special about 'home' to begin with. It unfortunately turns his family into one-dimensional pieces of a puzzle that slowly reveals itself and solves itself, as long as you just stick along for the ride.

It's not as if Nolan doesn't spend time focusing on these relationships, there is actually a decent amount of screen time devoted to it, it's that it just doesn't work in the way that everything else does in this movie. Incredible visuals? In spades. Seamless art direction? Check. Ominous and pounding score with accompanying sound design? Best of the summer. Clever and brutal action? Will be remembered for years. Powerful and three dimensional emotional archs? Sort of.

Perhaps though, this isn't a problem of Nolan's making. As I mentioned in the opening, our characters in the film create a dream world and then allow subjects into the dream that populate the dreams with their secrets. What's onscreen is the film and world that Nolan has created; the themes and emotion of the film reflect the vision and mind (secrets) of Nolan himself. However, in talking with a few people about the film, I found that they had a connection with Cobb's family that I didn't. As I expressed my disappointment in the emotional arch, they were surprised because they felt it worked perfectly. Perhaps, the story is a bit more complex than I've given it credit. Perhaps my disappointment and disconnection reflects less Nolan and more of me?

As I began to think along that line of thought, I find it incredibly rich that the central idea of the film (that of building a dream and allowing others to fill it) are essentially what happens when an audience interacts with a film. Each film has all the same elements of a dream world created and sustained by architects (writers), point men (directors), and forgers (actors). Like dreams, movies just begin suddenly and move from scene to scene, and when they bend reality in a way that's unreal we react accordingly. What makes this idea interesting is that the audience then becomes the subject, and we fill these films, stories, and worlds with our secrets and our projections.

** For an interesting read using this line of thought, read below the end of the review. Warning, it contains some spoilers

In this way, Nolan has left several things open to the viewer, and really allows the viewer to fill in accordingly. In this regard, the film is a smashing success and works not only as entertainment, but as a journey of adventure, interaction and catharsis. Without giving away the ending, I will say that it's most not an artistic cop out, but is seated firmly within the ideas and intentions I've mentioned above.

While it isn't a perfect film, Inception is a wonderfully crafted, and intricately plotted film that allows itself to be filled with the themes and idiosyncrasies of not only it's architect and writer, but us the viewer as well. In fact, should we not have expected as much from a film entitled "Inception"? For that reason, this film is able to rise above its few faults, rise above just being an entertaining film, and become a real piece of art. Like the best films, I think it allows each new viewer not just to enjoy it as it is, but to make it their own. Learning not just about Nolan's world and his secrets, but about our own in the process.

**Continued from above: SPOILERS

Continuing from the idea I've outlined above that this film functions in the same way that audiences interact with films. When can say this interpretation actually is manifested onscreen in the character of Saito (Ken Watanabe') as the 'Tourist'. Why does he tag along as part of the team? He say's it's to ensure that Cobb goes through with it. Essentially, I would argue that Saito is the stand-in for the audience here. The film is called "Inception". This is what we want to see Cobb and his team do, along with all the action and drama that comes with it. Saito (the audience) is the one that enrolls him in this action. In fact, isn't the idea of planting ideas into someone's mind, one of the reasons we go to the movies at all? To be inspired by ideas and to let them influence us?

Saito then comes along as 'The Tourist' as the stand-in, getting to not only watch the team in action, but also take part in the whole ordeal. In fact, our main character Cobb can't leave the film until he rescues us and brings as back into the world after the act of inception occurs. It's not until this happens that Cobb is allowed, by an act of Saito, to return and find his happy ever after. Cobb isn't allowed his happy ending, until he's accomplished what we want him to do, overcome his problems (which I would argue is the idea we want to have implanted in us), and get us out in the process.

Is it foolproof? No, but I think it's got a lot to say. Just a cursory reading of the IMDB boards shows there are several other interesting ideas and readings out there as well. This is just one that speaks quite a bit of insight to me.

Movie Review: The Last Airbender

Overall Grade: C-

What shocks the most about M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender is not that it's bad, (children's fantasy series don't always deliver on screen, Eragon anyone?) but that it's an absolute incompetent mess. Extending grace, I would first try to understand if the source material was flawed or presented an unadaptable challenge. On that note, it seems clear that the basic concepts of the source material are the few creative bright spots of the film. It's when Shyamalan overlays his adapted screenplay and his confused directing that the concepts fizzle out under overly expository dialogue, barely sketched out characters, and half-baked themes and arcs.

Still, M. Night can walk away with a few successes on this film. For the most part, the art direction, costume design, and visual effects work well to create the world this bumbling story inhabits. They are some great landscape shots and a clear idea (artistically) what the different nations (fire, water, wind, and earth) look like and feel like. Add to that a couple good shots of action when M. Night allows his camera to focus for a longer period of time (a camera move he would use for his most dramatic moments). Dev Patel walks away with perhaps the only three dimensional character (albeit slightly overplayed at times), and in my opinion is the only character to emotionally root for in this film. That's a problem.

Overall, Shyamalan seems to get bogged down in trying to explain this whole bending universe solely through expository dialogue. It shocks me that someone who was able to keep such subtlety and restraint in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable couldn't find out how to let the story tell itself, Robert McKee would not like this film. So many fans hoped that coming upon previously written material would give Shyamalan the creative spark he needed to return to his former self; those hopes are now dashed. As bad as The Happening was, at the least it was the failure of an artist taking risks with original material. What makes The Last Airbender a bit harder to stomach, is that there is no risk here, only incompetence on display.

The only noticeable difference between a Shyamalan directed Last Airbender and if Uwe Boll (In the Name of the King, Alone in the Dark) had directed it, would be the name in the credits. I've tried to keep up hope with Shyamalan, but he seems to only be going downhill (which is saying something after The Happening). There's always a possibility for redemption, but for now, the most accurate way to recommend Shyamalan's work in The Last Airbender is, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here"

The Hidden Story Behind Toy Story 3

After watching Toy Story 3, hearing reviews from friends, and reading several critical reviews of the film, I am stunned that much of the real story in Toy Story 3 has gone unnoticed. Underneath the bright colors, the funny lines, and the tear-jerking moments lies an existential tension that ultimately upholds a biting and deceptive nihilism that most audiences don't pick up on and if they did, would probably sour on the film. What am I talking about you ask? Lets dig a bit deeper.

SPOILER ALERT

Let's first get this out of the way; Toy Story 3 is a good film. The love from the writers and animators is clearly on display here, leading to a film that is equally parts funny, engrossing, and touching. Add on top of that continued great voice work, some fun new characters, and how could this film not be a success? While Toy Story 3 is clearly a winning film, there are a few issues that serve to limit this film (in many ways the series of films as well) for me, and it surprises me that many other critics and moviegoers don't seem to notice these issues as well.

The drama of the Toy Story Universe depends on its ability to create relatable situations between the toy subjects and the audience members. While there certainly are emotional points the audience can relate to within Toy Story 3, the overall dramatic issues are a failure as they fail to offer appropriately translatable situations for us, the audience. Toy Story 3's primary dramatic tension comes from Andy's growing older and no longer playing with his toys; he'll be going off to college by the end of the film. As such, the whole cast of toys has been getting neglected, thrown out, or donated. Our remaining cast of toys has to struggle with no longer being useful to their owner and eventually getting thrown into the trash, tossed in the attic, or donated to a daycare center. While it's a very relatable feeling to no longer feel wanted or used and indeed presents the audience with a similar existential crises, I don't think it becomes an appropriate tension for an audience to relate to.

Woody makes the argument early in the film that a toy's purpose is to be "there for Andy, whenever he needs them", basically saying that the purpose of life (for a toy) is to fulfill their role (being available to give joy to the kid) regardless of the circumstances (his seeming apathy and neglect). This makes things difficult for the audience because our purposes in life are very different. While Woody makes the argument that a toy's value comes in it's usefulness and acceptance by it's owner, that's a diametrically opposed value to what we feel humans have.

For instance, if something only has value because something outside of it finds it useful, attractive, fun, or whatever, then it has extrinsic value. Yet, most religions and the predominant culture of the day would argue that humans have intrinsic value. Meaning that we are valuable simply because of who we are and not based on anything outside us, say our family's love or our boyfriend's value of us. I would argue that this is the mindset the audience comes in with. It surprises me that the audience never picks up on the idea that the movie doesn't agree with that viewpoint. Woody makes this extrinsic argument in the beginning of the film (and in a way, the whole film series has been making it.)

You might say that this is just a beginning point for the film and that the theory undergoes change. Well, does it? By the end of the film, we find that the theme has gone from, "We are here for Andy" to "We are here for each other". This is told poignantly in a moment where our cast of toys embraces their seemingly inevitable fate of death (in a tear-jerking scene that would on its own stand as one of the best dramatic scenes of the year). However, has it changed our main issue of extrinsic versus intrinsic value? Unfortunately not, it's only multiplied it. Instead of finding one's value in the acceptance of the joy of it's owner, it's now about finding value in the acceptance of community. While it's true that genuine satisfaction comes from pleasing others and finding acceptance by others, should we be so comfortable with a film that makes it not a side-truth of our world, but 'the truth' of our world?

Ultimately what it comes down to is that Toy Story 3 is a nihilistic story at its heart, making it more akin to The Road, Up in the Air and No Country For Old Men than people would think. It's a story about beings who realize their ultimate purposelessness (Andy's growing indifference, toddler's mayhem, their fate being out of their hands, their ultimate fate at the dump), and must come to terms with creating value out of that world, where none exists. In this case, the value is family and staying together. There is nothing wrong with having a movie with this theme, however, it does strike me as odd that most people don't see it, or even know that it's going on.

I don't mind a nihilistic theme in a major release, but what I do mind are inconsistent themes of nihilism, which Toy Story 3 has in spades. As our film progresses, our characters ultimately catch onto tha "finding joy and purpose in their owner" is meaningless and changes their value to "finding joy and purpose in community". However, through some clever work by Woody (read writer manipulation), they are able to find a warm and caring owner again by the end. In essence, they are able to find a new Andy, one who takes care of them and looks after them. This is a lazy way to reward our characters and resolve a major worldview issue. Instead of our toys actually embracing and finding their fates as temporary passing objects of other's affections, they are rescued and sent into the hands of a new loving owner and community of toys.

One reviewer called this as close to 'religion' as a secular film gets, in remarking that there is an acceptance of mortality & purposelessness, but through the building of values they kind of find 're-birth' into a new world. I disagree. I think it's half-hearted nihilism. Here is the rub, if Andy can grow indifferent than so can their new owner. If Andy and the new owner can grow indifferent, then so can the other toys in their acceptance of each other. This is what the toys and the audience, after our experiences in this film should have learned. We shouldn't feel like the toys find a 'happily ever after', they have simply prolonged their fate, and allowed their value to come from community and the acceptance of an owner. What happens when this new owner tires of them? The film doesn't really want to embrace a nihilistic view of the world to it's end. It's more interested in a happy ending and a friendly loving community.

While the Toy Story 3 Universe may admit that these toys are just a piece of plastic meant to be thrown away when it's outlasted its usefulness, it ultimately doesn't treat them that way, because the audience wouldn't accept that. A brave film would've followed our heroes to their demise and to the triumph of its dramatic themes. Instead, the film stutters and panders not just to the audience, but more than likely to the half-hearted existential nihilism of the writers. It only makes me appreciate more the fully committed nihilism of a Charlie Kaufman, Cormac McCarthy, or Werner Herzog. They stare into the face of the abyss and come out changed, scared, and scarred. Our brave Toy Story characters stare into the face of the abyss and come out with smiles, hugs, laughs, and the welcoming arms of a re-born owner who lavishes attention, care, and love upon them. Something doesn't seem right here and I hope that audiences would take notice.

Sidenote: Does anyone else find it a little sad that rather than say goodbye to friends and family, Andy has to say goodbye to his 'good' friends Buzz and Woody? It's as if the film says that the best friend a boy could have are his toys. I'm all for creative play with toys, but shouldn't there be some balance with human interaction there? I just find the emphasis on the importance of toys (and the ungodly amount of toys) in a child's life to be a little scary.

How to Train Your Dragon: Video Review

Clash of the Titans: Video Review

The Green Zone: Review Roundup

While the film hasn't exactly grabbed the attention of the populace, it certainly has grabbed my attention. Brought to us by Matt Damon, Paul Greengrass, and Brian Helgaland (three of my favorite people making films), my contention is that Green Zone is a liberal fantasy that revises and simplifies the historical reasons for entering the Iraq War turning Matt Damon's Chief Miller into a superhero finding out the truth.

While that's the view that I take out of the film, there are plenty other voices out there, and below are a few of the other voices that I found interesting.


Kansas City.Com: A positive review from Robert Butler

Excerpt: "The film is particularly good at capturing the disconnect of life in Baghdad’s protected Green Zone. In Saddam’s former palace, Washington interns in bikinis lounge poolside with beers, cradling automatic weapons and listening to pop music. A few blocks away American soldiers are fighting and dying.

This movie is so focused on plot and breathless action that the acting is incidental. Unlike the Oscar-winning “Hurt Locker, these characters haven’t time for a significant emotional arc — they’re too busy running and shooting.

Still, Kinnear is a despicable villain, and Damon is his usual charismatic self. Amy Ryan has a few good moments as a reporter whose sloppy pre-war reporting about WMDs paved the way for the conflict, and Khalid Abdalla (who was born in Scotland) is excellent as a Saddam-hating Iraq army veteran who teams up with Miller, serving as his translator and the film’s conscience.

Bottom line: “Green Zone” is high-octane speculative fiction with a political agenda. You can already hear Rush Limbaugh harrumphing.

Read more at: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/11/1803503/green-zone-laced-with-action-and.html

Inland Empire Weekly: Amy Nicholson makes a case that the film isn't simplified but in actuality distilled

Excerpt: "Green Zone is as smart of a thriller as you’re going to see on the Iraq War. (At least, until 2060 when an as-yet-unborn Quentin Tarantino will make his War on Terror Inglourious Basterds.) Inspired by former Washington Post Baghdad bureau chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s first-hand account, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Green Zone distills—not simplifies—the clashing forces that dashed our chance of peace. (If, in fact, peace was ever even on the table.)...Green Zone is richer than Jason Bourne’s sweaty quest; though it’s a compressed fiction, it’s fair. Unlike GWB’s “With us or against us,” bluster, this doesn’t pretend that people are either good or bad. Everyone—even Naor’s deadly general—is self-righteously following their conscience. And consciences have consequences."

Read More At: http://www.ieweekly.com/cms/story/detail/green_zone/3101/

Film Freak Central: A mixed review from Ian Pugh.

Excerpt: "Green Zone feels like a self-conscious relic of the previous decade and there's nothing to convince us of otherwise, particularly because it applies tired aesthetics to an impotent tirade about the American invasion of Iraq. At its best, the picture suggests an extraneous coda to the Greengrass-completed Bourne trilogy, without the benefit of its mystery, its forward momentum, or its looming implications."


Read more at: http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/greenzone.htm


Decent Films Guide: A negative review by Steven D. Graydanus

Excerpt: "Reviewing the Rob Marshall film Memoirs of a Geisha, Roger Ebert wrote, “I suspect that the more you know about Japan and movies, the less you will enjoy Memoirs of a Geisha.” This is such a useful critical rule of thumb that there ought to be a shorthand way of referring to movies fitting that description. I don’t suppose we can call them Geisha movies. No, probably not.

Still, let the reader understand when I suggest that Green Zone is a Geisha movie, in the sense that the more you know about Iraq and movies, the less you will enjoy it. I don’t know a lot about Iraq, and even I know too much for this movie."

Read More At: http://decentfilms.com/reviews/greenzone
There is also something else worth reading on his site regarding Green Zone http://decentfilms.com/blog/green-zone-kinnear-lied

The Part-Time Critic: My takes on the film

"Does Roger Ebert Really Not Care About Truth?": I wrote an earlier review of Roger Ebert's four star review, that can be found here.


My own personal video review of Green Zone can be found here

2 Minute Video Review: Alice in Wonderland

Overall Grade: C

Feel free to comment with your own thoughts

2010 Film Preview: Part 2

You can find my 'Top Ten Most Anticipated Films of 2010' by going to Part 1 of my film preview or by Clicking Here.

In Part 2 of this film preview I'm going to delve into some more random categories. I guess once you start watching more than 100 films a year, you begin to become a little cynical towards films, and it's difficult to truly anticipate a film. This is the outlet you might find some of the more popular 2010 entries that I have one reason or another to begin to doubt. Did I miss anything big? Let me know.

"Not Quite Top Ten"

Shutter Island

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Opens in Feb.

Trailer

If you need more convincing other than seeing the director's name, than call me up and we'll go see it together and I'll tell you all about this Scorsese guy.

District B13: Ultimatum

Directed by Patrick Alassandrin

No release date

Trailer

How to Train Your Dragon

Directed by Chris Sanders

Opens in March

Trailer

Warlords

Directed by Peter Chan

Releases on Home Video

Trailer

Released in 2007 in Hong Kong, this war epic is finally making it's way stateside on DVD.

The Karate Kid

Directed by Harold Zwart

Opens in June

Trailer

"Want to like, But Have My Doubts I Will"

Alive in Wonderland

Seems to be falling into the Burton curse, "You seen one Burton film, you seen them all"

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

Columbus steered the Harry Potter ship right, so what makes us think he couldn't do it here? Oh, the release date? Yea, that makes me think so too.

Hot Tub Time Machine

It looks like it will be one of the biggest comedies of the year, but it doesn't do anything for me.

Date Night

Steve Carrell and Tina Fey in a comedy? Then why does the trailer not garner a single laugh out of me?

Nightmare on Elm Street

Another in the long line of remakes, but I've always thought this series had the best chance at being a horror film with some decent substance. Still, Bay is producing...and so far only the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake has been any good.

Iron Man 2

Didn't really care for the first, but could the second one be better?

Grown Ups

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part One

Wall Street 2

The Green Zone

"Guilty Pleasures"

The Expendables

An action junkies dream film. Stallone is on a creative run after the successes of Rocky Balboa and Rambo, so I hope this becomes the action film everyone knows it can be.

Jackass 3-D

I'm a sucker for the first two films, and I actually look forward to this one. With the original gang and Spike Jonze' involvement, how could this go wrong?

Saw VII 3-D

As you all may know, I'm a fan of the series and after a great Saw VI, I'm excited to see the directions they end up going with this one. Still, I wish they would've carried over the director form VI.

Universal Soldier: Regeneration

Van Damme turned down The Expendables because he said Sly didn't want to give him a 'character'. I guess Van Damme thought this direct to DVD film was the film he needed. Still, there is actually some decent buzz on the action in this one.

The Spy Next Door

The Shinjuku Incident

The Book of Eli

The Tooth Fairy

14 Blades

Ninja

Bad Blood

Kick Ass

"Curious, Keeping My Eye On It"

The Wolfman

The Social Network

Jonah Hex

Knight & Day

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Dinner for Schmucks

Despicable Me

The Fighter