Robin Hood

Now, where's that flammin' mongrel who told me this would be good for my career...

Dreams really can come true. On Tuesday night I dreamt that Robin Hood -- the fourth collaboration between Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe this month -- was a massive disappointment. On Thursday night in the real world, this was confirmed.

I had quite high expectations for Robin Hood. Scott and Crowe produced the goods -- or at least some good -- in Gladiator, so I had little reason to doubt that they could create something compelling out of this popular legend. While Robin Hood hasn’t been camped up to the same degree that Batman was when the caped crusader reached his nadir in Batman and Robin, there was certainly room for improvement after his last "serious" big-screen outing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. This felt like the right time for a makeover; the time to make the definitive Robin Hood film.

What we get instead is a feature-length episode of Xena: Warrior Princess without the lesbian undertones. And oh how they were missed.

Things get so bad that at one point the film turns into a sort of medieval rom-com, with Robin Hood and Lady Marion having to pretend to be married, much to Robin’s amusement and the fair lady’s disgust. At this stage I was just glad not to see Matthew McConnaughey join Robin’s band of merry men and make a bet with them that he could woo Marion before Robin could. Although on second thoughts, that might have made for a more entertaining film. It also would have been fun to hear who could do the worst English accent between the two male leads. Crowe changed his around five times, none of which were ever close to being convincing. I can only imagine the level of butchery that McConnaughey would have reached.

My advice is to skip this dull mess, whose sole highlight comes in the last minute of the film. If you’re desperate to feed this part of your brain, simply switch on an episode of Xena. It’s just like Robin Hood, but with lesbian undertones.

A God in Relation: Unsettling

The film Amadeus portrays how quickly a relationship with God can disintegrate when bound to our "religious" ways of thinking and conducted on our terms alone. Consider Antonio Salieri's pious prayer as a boy:

Lord, make me a great composer. Let me celebrate Your glory through music and be celebrated myself. Make me famous through the world, dear God. Make me immortal. After I die, let people speak my name forever with love for what I wrote. In return, I will give You my chastity, my industry, my deepest humility, every hour of my life, Amen.

His prayer appears to have been answered initially with him enjoying success as the court composer in Vienna, but along comes Mozart, and everything changes. God's glory was to be celebrated all right, but it was not to be celebrated through the music of the chaste Salieri. Instead, the voice of God was to be heard through licentious Mozart, that despicable jar of clay gifted with all that Salieri longed for and more.



This he could not handle; this he had to renounce, and in so doing he was forced to renounce God himself:

From now on we are enemies, You and I. Because You choose for Your instrument a boastful, lustful, smutty, infantile boy and give me for reward only the ability to recognize the incarnation. Because You are unjust, unfair, unkind, I will block You, I swear it. I will hinder and harm Your creature on earth as far as I am able.

The tragic irony is palpable. Through Mozart's music, Salieri was confronted with the glory of God that he longed to see celebrated, but he could not look on it in awe and wonder. All he felt was disgust and injustice. The god he thought he knew was a fraud created by the religious mind. The real God -- the God "incarnated" in the music of Mozart -- was revealed to him, and the shocking revelation led him to turn away, knowing full well what -- or rather, whom -- he was rejecting.

An unsettling God indeed.

The Bad Trailer

There are some film trailers that leave you desperate for more. The first time I saw Independence Day advertised in a cinema left me pining for July 4th, the date America sealed its independence from hostile alien invaders. The trailer so enamoured me that I genuinely thought the term “Independence Day” was coined by Roland Emmerich specifically for this movie. I also thought Bill Pullman was one of the world’s leading actors. I’ll let you judge which was the more outrageous thought.

More recently, The Dark Knight trailer proved to be a rousing success, leaving film fans in agonising anticipation for what felt like about five years. I can still hear “Good evening, commm--missioner” when I turn out the lights at bed time. Chilling.

The truth is, it’s rare you see a bad trailer. You will of course see a trailer for a film you know you’ll hate, but the trailer itself will have done its best to convince you otherwise. Unfortunately, it just couldn’t prevent from showing you Matthew McConaughey.

Yet however rare it is, the bad trailer still exists. It exists because sometimes a film is so abject that not even two and a half minutes of specially chosen footage can provide a redeeming feature, a cause for optimism.

Dear John appears to be one such film.

It looks like we’re in trouble from the get go of the trailer. Then after 22 seconds, “From Best-Selling Author Nicholas Sparks” appears on screen, and now we know we’re in trouble. I don’t know if the dialogue was lifted straight from the source material or if it was modified during the transition from book to screen, but it is seriously, seriously crap. The worst I’ve heard since Lucky You. Here are some choice examples:

Dear John demonstrating the abuse of the short sentence:

I like your Dad. He loves you. I can tell. Even if you can’t.

This is why Dear John Scares me:

- The way people act around you, it’s like they’re scared of you.
- Maybe they’re scared of who I used to be.
- You don’t scare me, John.
- Well you scare me.

Way to ruin the best line in the film:

- I’ll see ya soon.
- I’ll see ya soon.

Dear John on the philosophy of letter writing:

Dear John. Tell me everything. Write it all down. That way we’ll be with each other all the time, even when we’re not with each other at all.

Dear John not so much trailing off as simply stopping mid sentence:

All I know is that I want to stay here with you as long as I possible can. And I need you to tell me I don’t.

Tell me, have you ever seen a trailer quite like it? A trailer that can make you laugh and vomit in equal measure? If so, please show it to me.

I have to hand it to Nicholas Sparks, mind. The man (he is a man, right?) produces some of the most commercial pornography literature aimed at women out there. He has tapped into a lucrative zeitgeist, and is boldly going where no man has gone before. How is it he writes for women so well? Here’s what an angry, paranoid Nicholas Sparks might say in response:

I think I’m writing for men, and then I take away reason and accountability.

Anyway, all that aside, who wants to go see it with me? Seriously.

A Journalism Assignment

So we have to do a film review for our latest assignment. This is the first one I've ever done, so be gentle.


Crazy Heart

3 stars (out of 5)

There are some films that feel simply like the vehicle for a “Best Actor” Oscar. A Beautiful Mind was one (though Russell Crowe managed to punch himself out of contention), The Wrestler was one, and now we can file Crazy Heart under the same category.

The ever-excellent Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a grizzly country singer/songwriter whose best years are behind him. We are introduced to Blake as he gets out of his old pick-up truck with a bottle of urine in his hand and his pants unbuckled (and not for the last time, if I might add). This is the clearly middle of his fall from grace, as he prepares for a show in a bowling alley in some god-forsaken town in the Southwest.

Blake’s life consists of driving from place to place, staying in cheap motels, and playing shows with unfamiliar musicians booked by his distant manager (Paul Herman), all the while drinking his considerable sorrows away. (At one particularly alcohol-induced low point he walks off stage as a song begins to go throw up outside, and then walks back on just in time to strum the last chord.)

Things take a surprising turn, however, when he meets significantly younger journalist Jane (Maggie Gyllenhaal). She initially intends to interview Bad about his life, but the two strike up a romantic relationship not without its complications.

One of those complications, unfortunately, is that Maggie Gyllenhaal appears completely over-awed by a Jeff Bridges who is “in the zone”. She spends most of the film smiling giddily, as if she can’t quite believe she’s in the same scene as Bridges. It also doesn’t help that Gyllenhaal’s character is given little to no depth. We have no idea why she would be interested in Bad Blake, and vice-versa. She feels like nothing more than a fling, a musician’s perk while on the road, but we’re supposed to believe there’s more to it than that. We’re just not given many reasons to believe.

Then there is Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell), who was once mentored by Bad Blake but has now firmly stepped out of his shadow and into the spotlight. Sweet is portrayed as the bad guy (Blake won’t even talk about his protégé), but from his few appearances in the film he actually comes across as a decent bloke. I’m not sure what to make of this -- is Blake just unreasonably bitter or did Sweet do something genuinely nasty to out-do his mentor? -- but since Colin Farrell wasn’t even listed on the film poster I saw in the cinema it’s probably not worth talking about.

One actor who was listed was Robert Duvall, who produces as well as acts in the film. He plays Bad’s long-time friend Wayne with suitable southern charm and grace. He only appears for a handful of minutes, but does plenty with the little time he is given. If Bridges and Duvall aren’t best friends in real life, they should be. That's one crazy gang I'd very much like to go fishing with.

Overall, the film does more than enough to hold one’s attention for just shy of 2 hours. Bad Blake is someone we can care about, someone we can hope to get out of the rut he finds himself in. The musical sequences also help to keep things entertaining, and though by no means a country music fan I found myself tapping my foot along to the catchy tunes on more than one occasion.

Debut director Scott Cooper (who also wrote the film) does an excellent job of showing us the life of Bad Blake on the dusty trail, with all its partial nudity, vomiting, and sweatiness. But in all honesty it doesn’t feel like too bad a life, despite the alcoholism and so forth. Perhaps that’s another of the film’s faults; the serious issues don’t seem quite so serious in light of Blake’s genial, happy-go-lucky, dare I say The Dude-esque nature.

Still, Crazy Heart delivers in what it chiefly sets out to do: Make you fall in love with Bad Blake/Jeff Bridges. If that’s an experience you want to have, then you won’t be disappointed.

Terrible Films

The Agony Booth is a website dedicated to recapping terrible, terrible films. The writers wade through a movie scene by scene, picking it apart one appalling piece of direction/screenwriting/acting at a time. It may sound a tad excruciating, but based on the two recaps that I've read, it results in pieces that are really quite funny.

Consider this excerpt from the recap for Batman Forever, which I must admit had me chuckling for a good two minutes. (You had to be there):

Gordon introduces Batman to Dr. Chase Meridian, and it turns out Batman is already familiar with her work, because he cites it as naïve, but insightful. Some dreadful banter ensues between Batman and Chase that's too insipid to recount. The highlight, however, is when she calls Batman's own sanity into question by referring to him as "a grown man who dresses like a flying rodent."

BatVal gets a bit irritated by this. He responds by doing his very best scary eyes, and invading Chase's personal space, and offering the following reply.

Batman: Bats aren't rodents, Dr. Meridian!

Chase says she didn't know that. Honestly? Where did she get her PhD? I'm no zoologist, but even I could have told you that. Then Chase delivers the verbal coup de grace, and the most ridiculous line in the whole film.

Chase: By the way, do you have a first name, or do I just call you "Bats"?

What? Exactly what kind of response was she expecting there? "Oh, yeah, sure. I'm Melvyn. Melvyn Batman."

A Suggestion

A few bibliobloggers (as the kids are calling them these days) have been suggesting possible Bible-themed films that could be made, e.g. the life of Solomon, or David perhaps. This brought back to mind a suggestion I made in Scripture School last year as we studied the book of Acts - somebody should write a film on the life of Paul.

You could contrast his early life with that of Jesus, showing him learning at the feet of an esteemed rabbi in Jerusalem while the one he would later call "Lord" worked as a simple carpenter in Nazareth. Then of course there is Paul's initial life post-crucifixion and resurrection, present as he is at Stephen's stoning and at the forefront of Jewish antagonism towards this impure sect proclaiming a most blasphemous message - a crucified Messiah of Israel.

This all leads up to the pivotal point of the story: the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus. Everything changes after this, with this one time opponent of Christianity becoming its chief ambassador. In his life as a missionary, Paul experiences the good, the bad, and the sad. Many align themselves with the one he calls Christ, many aid him on his various trips, many fear the religious and political implications of his message and thus threaten his life, one time friends in Jerusalem would now consider him an enemy to be squashed, one time enemies of his now struggle to call him friend, he grows close to his church plants yet is forced to move on and let these fledglings carry the baton (Acts 20:17-38 is a heart-wrenching example), he is imprisoned, beaten, stoned, and yet faithful to his charge right to the end, culminating in that long-awaited visit to Rome (albeit in chains).

There are dramatic sermons in Jerusalem, there is philosophical reasoning in Athens, spiritual/economic conflict in Ephesus, a courtroom drama or two, a disastrous sea voyage, miracles, heartbreak, hymn singing in prison, secret assassination plots, loose morals, and much more.

Honestly, I really think it could work if it was done right. This would be a character study, and a character study on one of the most important and influential human beings ever to live. If I were a budding screenwriter this would be my pet project, my Good Will Hunting if you will.

As for some other details, who do you think could play Paul? Anthony Hopkins played him in a made-for-TV movie some 28 years ago, but he's probably too old to reprise that role. Bear in mind also that Paul, it is generally agreed upon, was not an attractive man. Small, bald, and so forth. (Well, do you know any attractive men who are both small and bald?)

Another issue would be whether or not such an overtly Christian film could be universally received. To achieve this it would have to avoid being preachy - no easy task when the central character is, amongst other things, a preacher. I suppose a film on Paul would be inherently offensive to some, but that's not to say that, like the Stoics and Epicureans, they wouldn't want to hear more from this great thinker and prolific missionary.

Finally, a tag-line. This I have already sorted:

"And you thought The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic..."

Anyway, a film on Paul? Who's with me, yay or nay? ("yay" means yes)

My Movie Year

I didn't watch a lot of movies last year.

That's it.

No, that's not it. However, out of what I watched, here's a brief list and some comments about what I liked, loathed, and found to be disappointing.

Liked

My favourite movie of 2008 was Gone Baby Gone. I loved the dialogue, the score, the characters, the acting, and pretty much everything else there is to love about a movie. However, what I liked the most was the moral ambiguity of the plot. The way two people can have completely opposing views as to what is "right", and yet both sides can be sympathised with to the point where you actually don't know which side of the line you put yourself in. The movie is based on a kidnapping, but don't let that fool you into thinking that it's another Ransom. What Heat is to Beverly Hills Cop, Gone Baby Gone is to Ransom. Similar premise, but chalk and cheese otherwise. All watchable films in their own way though!

Of course one can't talk about good movies of 2008 without mentioning The Dark Knight. I really liked it the first time I watched it; I absolutely loved it the second time. Whether this is a slight criticism or a compliment, it didn't really feel like a comic book movie, despite the fact that its leading character was dressed up as a bat for significant portions of the movie. I guess the film makers wanted to portray it as a very serious film, thus avoiding any similarity with all Batman efforts pre-Batman Begins. They certainly did that, and the film is all the better for it in that respect.

What did feel like a comic book movie was Iron Man, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Robert Downey Jr was just, well, Robert Downey Jr, and who doesn't love Robert Downey Jr? Certainly not Robert Downey Jr. The film was just tremendous fun, with only a slight lack of action preventing it from being pitch perfect for me. If you haven't seen this movie, do so. I guarantee your surprise (unless of course you've taken to heart everything I've just said, in which case you won't be surprised at all).

Loathed

If you haven't seen Fool's Gold, then I envy you. I can't overstate how bad this movie is, but here's my attempt: It's the worst movie I've ever seen. That said, it's so bad it's almost comical in places. I went to see it with two friends and for the most part we just looked at each other at various points during the movie with disbelief on our faces, wondering Why did they make this movie? How were they allowed to make it? And who would be stupid enough to pay 9 Euros to go and see...oh, wait.

I mentioned it before in the blog, but The Mummy 3 was undoubedly a crapfest. To read more, click here.

I'd like to say that the Incredible Hulk was disappointing, and in a way it was. But it was also just rubbish and therefore loathable. Sorry Eddie, but you're gonna have to just hold your hands up for this one. Not as bad as Spiderman 3 though, I'll give it that.

Disappointing

A lot of people raved about Juno, calling it "quirky", "funny", "hilarious" and so forth. I thought it was a watchable film, but funny? I can't really say I laughed all that much, if at all. I may have had a smile on my face on occasion, but it was more pretentious than witty (the movie, not my smile...though maybe that too). Napolean Dynamite was probably the catalyst for this recent fascination with all things "quirky", but people need to learn that "quirky" does not necessarily equal "funny". Anyone can make a quirky movie. Just put in some dorks, some retro clothing and some crazy/hip parents and you have yourself a quirky movie. "Look at that dork being socially awkward! He's so...quirky"; "Look at those short shorts! They're so...quirky"; "Look at that dad offering pot to his son and being not at all concerned about real life issues. He's so...quirky".

Maybe I'm just trying to be obtuse by not buying into what most people consider to be cool, and maybe I'm the pretentious one. Or maybe I just don't get Juno. Whatever the case may be, I didn't laugh very much while watching it, and so disappointing it was.

As was The Quantum of Solace. I watched most of You Only Live Twice over the Christmas, and compared to it, Quantum of Solace sucks. I mean compare Blofeld (aka Number 1), the chief bad guy in YOLT, with the bad guy in QOS, whose name I don't care about. One of them provokes real fear, sending attractive females into piranha infested waters at the press of a foot pedal, while the other is a wimp. In the last couple of James Bond movies most of what a Bond movie is supposed to be has been erased, and replaced with what a Bourne movie is supposed to be. The results are not good, and people who say otherwise have lost touch with the essence of Bond.

There's definitely more to add in each of these categories, but I've spent the last minute thinking and nothing has come to mind, so that's it. Agree? Disagree? Sort of agree? Any suggestions of your own to make me feel silly for leaving it out? Leave a comment! You know you don't want to, but do it anyway.

At The Foot Of The Cross

I've gone to a DVD night every second Thursday for roughly the past two and a half years now. It's run by the Galway City Baptist Church, and they're very gracious for doing so. Anyway, last night we watched 'The Kite Runner'. Needless to say, I hadn't read the book, so I went into this movie not knowing what to expect from it, save for subtitles.

(On the topic of subtitles, as I was telling someone yesterday, every time I'm about to watch a subtitled film I always groan and complain about the fact that I have to 'work' while watching a movie. Then when I watch the movie, reading the subtitles becomes so effortless, and really adds to the overall experience. I'll proceed to make a mental note of that fact, lest I approach the next subtitled film with similar dread. Of course, the very next film I watch that contains subtitles will be greeted with boos and disapproval, and me once again complaining of having to 'work' while watching a movie. Never mind the fact that I've enjoyed nearly every subtitled film I've seen. That all goes out the window. How quickly we forget, eh?

This same viscious cycle applies to the film 'Waterworld' also. The first time I watched Waterworld I thought it was rubbish, which it was - just like virtually every film critic has ever said. However, every time Waterworld appears on the small screen (usually Thursday nights at 9.30pm on RTE 2), I say to myself, 'You know, maybe it's not as bad as I think'. And so I'll watch it in the vain hope that it may well be a decent flick. It's not, and I resolve straight after to never watch it again on the grounds that it really is as horrible as every one says. Of course next time RTE 2 decide to pull it out of the fire, Declan decides to give it another chance. Foolish Declan.)

OK all of that aside, I really enjoyed 'The Kite Runner' (as a warning, I don't want any of you pretentious purists telling me that the book is better than the film). There were quite a lot of issues to think through afterwards, which is always a good sign. And moreover, there were numerous religious themes and parallels to be drawn from the story, which I always appreciate in films (as long as they're handled with subtlety, just as Mel Gibson did with his acute film 'The Passion of the Christ' [!?]).

One of the more impactful scenes in the film is quite an horrific one. To give it some context (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT FOR THE REMAINING PARAGRAPHS), we're shown the story of two friends - one a servant to the others father. The servant (Hassan) is the braver of the two. He's only a boy, but he shows great moral courage, and displays all the characteristics of a true friend. The other boy is weak in comparison, and this weakness is no more evident than when his best friend is cornered by a group of older teens. These teens want to take the kite that Hassan 'ran' (I want explain what that means). Hassan refuses, stating that this is the kite which he ran for Amir, and he's not going to just hand it over.

All the while, Amir is watching this unfold from a far. He sees his best friend's display of loyalty and courage, but this moves him not an inch. He doesn't intervene, he doesn't cry for help. He just watches, paralyzed with fear and lacking any conviction. Hassan is beaten to the ground - kicked, punched, and eventually raped. Amir can't just stand by and idly watch any longer, which leads him into action - his action being to run the other way. He sits on a step and waits for his friend to emerge, hobbling quietly from the alley, blood dripping to the ground.

Amir plays dumb and greets his friend as if nothing happend. Naturally enough, Hassan is keen to do likewise.

The friendship between these two boys begins to deteriorate, all because of shame. Not because of shame on Hassan's part, but because of the shame that Amir feels for all that he didn't do. Amir can barely look his friend in the eye. Every time he sees Hassan he is reminded of his moral cowardess, his moral failings. He's too ashamed and too proud to admit of his wrong doing, so he sees no other choice but to get Hassan out of his life, for he can't bare to have him in it any longer.

He does this by falsely accusing Hassan of stealing, thus forcing Hassan and his family out of the picture. This is but temporary relief of course.

Having moved to America (the story leaps forward a number of years), Amir has graduated from college, is a successful author, and has married his childhood sweetheart (and by 'his childhood sweetheart' I mean 'a girl he knew for about 5 minutes'). However, he is beckoned back to Afghanistan by a friend of his fathers. He is given a chance for redemption.

Hassan has died, but his son has been taken prisoner by a Taliban official, Assef. Not too surprisingly, this offical is the same youth who violated Hassan's innonce all those years ago. To cut a long story short, Amir goes to Assef's house, and demands that Hassan's son leave with him. Assef proceeds to beat Amir to the ground, as he did Hassan that day. However, the boy (Hassan's son) slings a brass ball into Assef's face, and he and Amir escape. More importantly, Amir is finally redeemed.

Such a story might not seem true of you or me, but it is. We may not think we have blood on our hands like Amir did, but we do. History and the Bible tell us that every single person on this earth has the blood of a man on their hands; has the death of a man on their conscience. We are all guilty, just as Amir was. And just like Amir, we all know we're guilty. Romans 1 speaks of this knowledge. The question is, what do we do with this guilt?

There are really only two options. We can own up to our guilt, confess our wrong doing, and seek forgiveness and restoration. Or, like Amir, we can try to suppress our guilt and our shame. We can try and remove the Hassan from our lives, so that we don't have to look him in the eye and feel that brokenness over and over again.

However, as it was with Amir, this is but a temporary solution. For although we can change our environment, our very hearts carry in them the knowledge of right and wrong, and we know that we have wronged.

I was reading in a book the other day that when we see Jesus for who He really is, we can only either turn away or shamelessly adore him. The prostitute in Simon's house could have either turned away in sheer guilt and shame in Jesus' presense, or else bowed down at his feet and worshipped Him. She chose the latter, and her sins, though they were many, were immediately forgiven.

Unlike Amir, we dont have to make amends for our wrong doing by doing something right to balance the books. Jesus' death on the cross was enough to pay for all the sins of the world. So what do we do? Well as Paul says in his letter to the Galatians,

"...the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

To rest on that faith and live out of that faith is to be restored. To turn away from Jesus, to suppress the truth, to try and banish Him from your life, is to live in shame. It is to live with blood still on your hands. We have all been guilty of this from the beginning of our lives, and even I as a Christian find myself negoatiating the truth in order to appease my sin. It can't be done however. I can't hide, I can't cover up, I can't make excuses. All I can do -- all anyone can do -- is go to the foot of the cross, where love and sorrow meet, and where the wrath of God is satisfied, bringing forgiveness and restoration to whosoever believes.

Religious thoughts aside, this is a pretty good movie, so check it out if you can.

The Mummy

I saw the latest 'Mummy' movie a couple of days ago. It is not a good movie, and this is coming from someone who actually found the first two 'Mummy' movies quite enjoyable. That's not to say I didn't have fun watching this film of course. I have some form of masochistic side to me that enjoys seeing horrible, horrible films (which I'm sure is the same side that urges me to switch the channel to E4 when One Tree Hill is on). Not all bad films qualify though. They usually have to be fast-paced, contain 'witty banter' that is neither witty nor banter, and star someone who is nice to look at.

The Mummy ticked all three of these boxes and then some, so my dark side was left more than satisfied by the awfulness on display. For starters, there were no actual mummies in this movie called 'The Mummy'. A bit misleading, don't you think? Yes there was a dead person who was brought back to life, but not all dead people brought back to life qualify as mummies. I mean are the makers of this movie planning on basing their next 'Mummy' movie on Jesus? I should think not. The fact that this movie about mummies has no mummies in it is a very good indication as to the thought that went into it - minimal, if any.

What makes it hard for me is the fact that Al Gough and Miles Miller (creators of Smallville) wrote this thrash. Despite what anyone tells you, Smallville was once a very good show. And so I must ask, have Gough and Miller just completely lost it when it comes to writing? They must have written the script for this around the same time they penned season 4 of Smaillville, which I hope for their sakes was around the same time they both went on a year-long drug and alcohol fuelled binge. At least that would provide an explanation for the utter crap they produced during that time period.

Another problem I had with this film was that most of the main actors in it were playing characters of a different nationality to their own. Now of course when that's done well there's no problem, but when people can't be bothered keeping up an accent it just gets annoying. We had an American lady pretending to be English, an Australian pretending to be American, a Scot pretending to be English (after all William Wallace did for you!?), and Brendan Fraser pretending to be an actor. Why didn't the casting directors just hire people form the country their character was from? Were they so struggling to find people that they had to use any idiot who for some reason read the script and actually agreed to act in this film, even if said idiot was the completely wrong nationality for the part? Yeah, that sounds about right.

As for the plot, there were Yeti's in this movie. I think that speaks for itself. Basically, things just kind of had to be done for no apparent reason. Initially we're lead to believe that if a stone is placed in some special place then the Dragon Emperor will be awoken and immortal and so forth. But then once that's done another clause on the immortality contract appears, then another, and so on until the hour and a half is up.

One of the dumbest scenes (and please believe me when I stress that this is saying a lot) is when this army of dead soldiers is awoken by the good witch (played by Michelle Yeoh, who made this movie a little easier on the eye) and they run out of their grave all fired up and ready for some killin'. They see Brendan Fraser and gang and are about to slash them to pieces until, wait for it, Brendan Fraser actually reasons with them [?]. He's like 'No, we're with ye' and then these killing machines who don't actually speak English just cease from attacking them and instead go after the bad guys. Huh?

I could go on and on, but this film isn't worth it. Unless you're like me and you derive pleasure from pain, don't go see this movie. Or at least don't pay for it anyway. Go see The Dark Knight again instead (assuming you've already seen it).

To give you one final insight into the badness of this movie, there is a scene where the two love interests are having this ridiculously cheesy conversation, and one of the guys in the cinema just sighs and says, "Ah for f**k sake". Excusing the potty mouth, I think he spoke for us all at that moment in time, and what's more, he had me laughing for about 5 minutes. The perfect reaction to a most imperfect film.

A Change of Pace

I might do a proper entry later but for now, here's something completely different.

1. Open your library (iTunes, Winamp, Media Player, iPod, etc)
2. Put it on shuffle
3. Press play
4. For every question, type the song that's playing
5. When you go to a new question, press the next button
6. Don't lie


Opening Credits:
Green Eyes - Coldplay

Waking Up:
Moving Pictures, Silent Films - Great Lake Swimmers

First day at High School:
I Remember Music - Rocky Votolato

Falling in Love:
Mary Of Silence - Mazzy Star

Fight Song:
Lazy - Mark Kozelek

Breaking Up:
Buddy Holly - Weezer

Prom:
How Life Can Turn - The Appleseed Cast

Life:
King or Cripple - Delirious?

Mental Breakdown:
The Past And Pending - The Shins

Driving:
Sleepwalk - The Shadows

Flashback:
Sliver - Nirvana

Getting Back Together:
Fly - Nick Drake

Wedding:
Monsters - Band Of Horses

Birth of Child:
Good Deeds - Owen

Final Battle:
Down In A Hole - Alice In Chains

Death Scene:
Good Morning, Providence - The Gloria Record

Funeral Song:
A Praise Chorus - Jimmy Eat World

End Credits:
16 Military Wives - The Decemberists


Movies:
1. One movie that made you laugh

Liar, Liar

2. One movie that made you cry

Cast Away

3. One movie you loved when you were a child

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (Cartoon Version)

4. One movie you’ve seen more than once

The Rock

5. One movie you loved, but were embarrassed to admit it

Shall We Dance? (although 'love' is such a strong word...)

6. One movie you hated

Spiderman 3

7. One movie that scared you

No One Could Protect Her

8. One movie that bored you

Into The Wild

9. One movie that made you happy

Jerry Maguire

10. One movie that made you miserable

Fool's Gold

11. One movie you weren’t brave enough to see

The Matrix Revolutions (With 'Reloaded' being so bad I could never bring myself to see the third installment)

12. One movie character you’ve fallen in love with

Pocahontas...There, I said it.

13. The last movie you saw

Gone Baby Gone

14. The next movie you hope to see

The Dark Knight

All Aboard

If you haven't seen 3:10 to Yuma then may I make a gentle suggestion to stop reading this blog and go rent 3:10 to Yuma immediately. You won't regret it. In fact one could make a strong case that if you stop reading this blog and do anything else you won't regret it, but let's not hurt feeling here. Anyway, if you have seen the movie in question, then by all means continue reading.

I'll admit right off the bat that I know very little about Westerns. I haven't watched many, with a few notable exceptions being classics such as Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood, Dances With Wolves with Kevin Costner, and Wild Wild West with Will Smith. In looking at the top 50 Westerns on IMDB, Unforgiven and Dances With Wolves are the only two I've seen in their entirety. So my point is, I don't exactly know what makes for a good Western or a bad Western.

However, I do know what makes for a good movie and a bad movie. For example, I know that Wild Wild West is not a good movie, and that The Godfather is a good movie. (See, I told you I knew.) And as for 3:10 to Yuma, I happen to think it's one of the best movies since the turn of the century, and here is why...

Characters. That is why I watch movies. Yes, I enjoy movies with lots of explosions; yes I enjoy movies that are just plain dumb (the two tend to overlap). But when it comes to my favourite movies, I'm all about the characters, baby. That is why Heat is possibly my favourite movie of all time. Yes it has got action and tension and about 30 minutes of non-stop gun-firing madness, but at the heart of it all are two extremely interesting and intense characters. Much like 3:10 to Yuma.

On one side of the law you have Dan Evans (Christian Bale), and on the other you have Ben Wade (Russell Crowe). Initially, I was much more drawn to Wade, because he's undoubtedly the 'cooler' of the two. I mean he's the outlaw, the expert gun-slinger, the ruthless boss of a deadly posse. Dan, on the other hand, is a rancher. A one-legged rancher at that. Is there anything more uncool than a rancher who doesn't have the use of both his legs?

Not according to Dan's son William, anyway. He looks at his 'Pa' with a certain disdain and almost embarrassment, while he's in awe of the great Ben Wade. However, as the movie progresses, we (like William) start to see things a little differently.

If you take things a little deeper, this movie gives us an insight into what society thinks is 'cool', and what is actually cool (for want of a better word). Like I said, initially it was Russell Crowe's Ben Wade that I was drawn too. I mean he hooked up with a woman simply by calling her skinny. What more can you ask from a man? He demonstrated in spades all of the things that we as "surface" people latch on to so easily - charm, wit, confidence - but at the expense of what is deeper. As The Wolf once said "Just because you are a character, that doesn't mean you have character". Never a truer word spoken by a guy who helps to clean up dead bodies for a living.

While Ben Wade was a character, it was Dan that had all the character, and I think this made Ben Wade a little jealous, but also intrigued and respectful. Dan obviously didn't have to escort Wade to the train, but he did it anyway. We might believe that he only did it for the money, but by films end that is not the full story. Dan wanted to bring a criminal to justice. He didn't want someone as dangerous as Wade wandering the streets, or deserts or whatever.

He also did it for his son. He knew the way his eldest boy looked at him, and he wanted to prove to the kid that he wasn't a complete failure. While Dan was by no means the perfect man, his innate sense of integrity eventually won over Ben Wade, and more poignantly, his own son. William went from resenting everything his father stood for to having the utmost respect for him, which was really quite the transformation. And what's more, it was a plausible transformation. A transformation that made sense.

And as for Ben Wade...well, I think the end of the movie speaks for itself.

There are other little details I could go into, but I won't. I think on a personal level, this film gave me clearer sense of what it means to be a real man, as cheesy as that sounds. Because of the age we live in, I'm lead to believe that Ben Wade is the bar and it is my duty to try and reach it. He is the yardstick by which all men are measured, and if you don't quite make it, then I'm afraid you're just not cool and you'll have to try harder. Maybe gather some new pick up lines or something.

That whole notion is a myth however - a myth that this film dispenses with. The more we strive to be like Dan Evans, the better the men we become, and the more positive influence we have on society. And of course since I'm a Christian, the same characteristics that draw me to Dan are found in their completeness in Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is a person of integrity, justice, and so forth. How often it is that we ignore these things and settle for something and someone so much less.

So yeah, if you have already seen 3:10 to Yuma then watch it again, perhaps with new eyes. If you haven't, then rectify the situation immediately.