Knowing Is Half the Battle…

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra has been one of the most anticipated films of the summer,  and nobody was looking forward to it more than those of us who grew up on the old G.I. Joe cartoons.  When I sat down in the theater, I saw a lot of children in there, and I couldn’t help but think to myself: How is G.I. Joe even relevant to kids today when there’s not even a cartoon to support it?  Perhaps it was just parents bringing their children along with them as they came out to enjoy some nostalgia.

I never was a hardcore G.I. Joe fan as a child.  I watched the cartoon because it was always on the regular evening line-up and perhaps Saturday mornings as well (I really can’t remember that far back).  I always enjoyed it, but I never collected the toys or any of the other various merchandise that went along with it.  That being said, this movie is pretty much what you would expect from a film based on G.I. Joe.

Many of the fans that I’ve spoken with have said that they thought this film was better than Transformers, and I have to agree with that statement.  This film has what you expect from an action movie: lots of fighting and special effects.

The film was well put together, entertaining, and the casting was mostly appropriate.  However, I didn’t agree with the casting for Ripcord.  I felt Marlon Wayans was inappropriate for the role.  I know he was probably changed to an African-American character in order to be politically-correct, but I’m a purist and believe characters should be portrayed as they were originally intended.  Also, I found Dennis Quaid’s acting to be a little forced.

On a different note, I think my biggest disappointment with this film was the fact that there was no PSA after the credits!  I fully expected one as a joke and a nod to the old cartoons.  There’s no way they could’ve just let that slip by.  Someone had to have thought of it!  Oh well, maybe on the DVD, I hope.

Overall, it was enjoyable. Watch it when you get the chance. Maybe it’s on at a cheap theater by now, since I’m finishing this so late.

There and Back Again: A Blogger’s Tale

Alright, everyone, I’m back. I’m sure those of you who check this blog regularly have wondered where I’ve been for the past month. Well, wait no more. I’ve spent the past three weekends on the road, and it interfered with my movie watching.  The first weekend I was absent was spent in Nashville, TN visiting friends and listening to some friends’ band play.  The second weekend was spent as the videographer for a friend’s wedding in Corbin, KY.  Last weekend I found myself unexpectedly making a trip to Louisville, KY to shoot a Cool Hand Luke show.  Despite being busy last weekend, I did manage to make it to the theater to watch Funny People, however.  But before I get to that, I feel it wouldn’t be fair to completely ignore the movie I watched just before leaving for Nashville.  And I do apologize for not giving Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the full review it deserves, but the past month has been quite busy.

So, yeah, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince…I watched this one the day before I left for Nashville and I enjoyed it.  Keep in mind that I’ve never read a single Harry Potter book and I don’t intend to.  Sorry to all of you fans out there, but it’s just not my type of reading.  However, even though I’ve never read a Harry Potter book, I did get the distinct impression that a lot of information was left out of this movie.  The most notable instance for me was when Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) reveals that he is the Half-Blood Prince.  It just happened kind of out of nowhere and what relevance that has is never explained, despite being the title of the film.  I can only hope that it gets explained for us non-readers in the final two films.  Overall, though, I found the movie entertaining, and even went to all the trouble of watching the other Harry Potter movies before going to see this one so that I’d at least have some clue as to what I was talking about for the blog.  Too bad that unseen forces conspired to prevent me from doing a full review.  It’s definately worth watching in the theater, and I’d even suggest seeing it in IMAX if you have the chance.

Now…on to Funny People.

Let me start by saying that I was thrilled to see Adam Sandler doing a funny movie again.  While I enjoyed some of his serious films such as Spanglish and Reign Over Me (I never watched Punch Drunk Love), comedy is definately his element and I think he should stick with it.

This film is about a stand-up comedian named George Simmons (Adam Sandler) who learns that he has an untreatable blood disorder and is put on an experimental drug treatment.  At one of his performances, he meets aspiring comedian Ira Wright (Seth Rogen).  George offers Ira a job writing for him as well as a chance to become his opening act.  The two form a genuine friendship and Ira is the first to learn about George’s illness.  Ira convinces George to tell someone else, and in doing so, he attempts to rekindle his relationship with his now-married ex-girlfriend Laura (Leslie Mann).

I’ve read mixed reviews about this film.  But I honestly thought it was good, if not ridiculously long for a comedy with a runtime of 2 hours 26 minutes.  Most comedies tend to average at about 1 hour 30 minutes. Funny People is Judd Apatow’s (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) third film as director.  It’s a little different than his previous two films in the sense that it tries to be serious and funny simultaneously.  I’d phrase it as being “a serious story about a funny guy.”

The humor is pretty much what we’ve all come to expect from Adam Sandler.  I also appreciated how they even worked some video footage of Sandler’s old comedy routines and prank phone calls into the movie.  Good use of old material.  Seth Rogen is pretty good in this film as well.  His character comes off as a guy who’s not really as funny as he thinks he is but finally ends up finding something that works and getting a break when he meets George.

Overall, it’s a good movie. I laughed. I felt bad for George at times, and was happy for him at times.  It’s a film where two people find humor even in the worst of situations.  The worst part is that it was a little long, but it had a lot of material to cover. I know it’s been out for a week already, but if you haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, go check it out.

I know this isn’t as in-depth as some of my other posts, but I’m having to condense and get caught up this time around.  Expect my review of G.I. Joe soon…

I Love Gangster Films But I Hate Jump Cuts

For those of you that know me, you know that I can’t resist a good gangster film.  I love films like The Godfather, Scarface (the 1932 version), etc, so naturally, this one caught my interest.

Based on the non-fiction book Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34by Bryan Burrough, this film tells the true story of bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and FBI Agent Melvin Purvis’s (Christian Bale) attempt to bring him to justice.  The film received a great deal of hype prior to its release, and perhaps that fact is one of its most significant problems.  I honestly expected a bit more from this film.  It had all the ingredients of a great period drama and it was based on an actual event.  And while the story and acting were good, my problems with the film were all technical.

One of the most obvious things I noticed was the jerky camera-work.  I realize this was most likely intentional, judging from the composition of some of the shots, but I am just not a fan of that style of filming.  That being said, I understand that it has its place, but when its used as the primary style for a film, it just becomes annoying and slightly nauseating (especially when you’re one of the unfortunate people who have to sit up front).  In my opinion, it was bad cinematography on the part of Dante Spinotti.  Spinotti has done decent work in the past (X-Men: The Last Stand, for example), and here’s hoping this style doesn’t carry over to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader next year.

While we’re on the subject of camera-work, I have to bring up the graininess of some the shots in the scenes taking place in low-light environments.  For a film shot in high-definition, these particular scenes certainly didn’t quite measure up. 

And now let’s get to something that just made me cringe: the jump cuts.  Granted, I only noticed two, but jump cuts are something that annoy me.  The first jump cut I noticed in this film was during the first bank robbery.  The lookout is positioning himself in the doorway and preparing to bring his gun up and all of a sudden there’s a cut to a similar shot for no apparent reason.  I had to ask myself if I really saw that, and was prepared to write it off as my imagination, but then the same thing happens during a later bank robbery before Dillinger enters a bank vault.  Being an editor, jump cuts are something I cannot easily overlook or forgive.  I even get upset at myself when I miss them.

Here’s something that’s easily forgivable, although extremely annoying: there’s a scene where Baby Face Nelson is drunk and asks his friends if they want to hear his James Cagney impersonation.  He then proceeds to quote one of Cagney’s lines from Angels With Dirty Faces.  That particular film wasn’t released until 1938, and the events of Public Enemiestake place in 1933-34.  I’m notorious for picking up continuity and accuracy mistakes and hate when they’re allowed to slip through.  Just ask anyone I worked with on the Algorithm: Black project; I was constantly on everyone’s case, sometimes to the point of making everyone else angry.

In conclusion, I can’t complain too much about the plot and the acting.  Johnny Depp and Christian Bale both did an amazing job portraying Dillinger and Purvis, respectively, without coming off over-the-top.  As far as gangster films go, it was entertaining and I’d recommend seeing it in the theater.  My only issues were technical issues, and to the average viewer who doesn’t care that much for such issues, it wouldn’t really be all that noticeable.

Give it a watch, check it out, let me know what you think!

The Fallen Shall Rise or How Many Times Can We Play the Same Green Day Song in One Film

Don’t get me wrong, “21 Guns” is an amazing song, and I listen to it quite often, but I can count at least four times off the top of my head where it was used in this film.  But I digress.

Here’s the main two complaints that I am hearing regarding this film, from both fans and critics alike.

1) There were too many explosions and it was too loud.

And this is a complaint why?  You don’t go to a movie like this expecting something artsy.  You expect it to be loud and full of special effects.

2) Megan Fox wasn’t as hot in this one.

I’m not even going to comment on the veracity of this statement.  It makes me laugh. Even if it is true, I find it extremely difficult to take any critic or fan who makes this claim serious.

I went to this movie expecting to see the latest summer blockbuster action movie.  I wasn’t disappointed. Explosions, robots, great special effects, Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving…those are the ingredients of a great recipe. 

The story was fairly decent.  The Decepticons return to Earth in order to locate energon and resurrect Megatron (voice of Hugo Weaving).  Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) has the map to what is believed to be the energon’s location stored in his brain which makes him a target of the Decepticons.  After traveling halfway around the world and across the deserts of Egypt and Jordan, the Autobots and the Decepticons meet in the final showdown.

The effects were great, the story was decent, and the acting was about what you would expect from a movie like this.  That being said, I had a few problems. 

Problem #1) The Twins

This was a lame idea.  They acted completely stupid and their humor was terrible. I’m all for comedy relief, but only when it’s believable and not over-the-top.  These robots were pretty much the Jar Jar Binks of the Tranformers movies.  I’ve also heard some criticism saying that the portrayal of these characters is racist.  I don’t buy that,  but they were just a bad idea. Period.

Problem #2) Identifying the Robots

I’m not a die-hard Transformers fan.  I never even watched the cartoon growing up except for a few episodes.  I knew a few of the characters and had friends that liked the show, however.  But for the average viewer, I found it somewhat difficult to tell the robots apart, especially the Decepticons.  But that’s just my opinion.

Overall, this was a highly entertaining movie that was worth paying admission for.  I would even say it’s worth seeing in IMAX, but I chose not to simply because I didn’t want to wait until late in the afternoon.  It’s what you would expect out of a summer blockbuster and there’s plenty of content in the movie that kids and adults will both enjoy, however the PG-13 rating comes mostly from the language and a suggestive scene or two.

If you’ve seen it, let me know your thoughts. If not, go see it and drop a comment or two.

What Happens In Vegas…

So, I went and watched The Hangover a few days ago.  This movie was pretty much what I expected: not extraordinary, not thought-provoking, but good enough for a guilty-pleasure, make-you-laugh movie.  I’ll admit, I’m a bit leery when it comes to comedies because the trailers tend to show the funniest parts of the movie and when you actually go to watch it, you expect more comedy but really only get stuff that doesn’t quite measure up.  So, all things considered, this one was actually worth watching.

Basically, you’ve got four guys who go to Vegas for a bachelor party and have a crazy night.  They wake up the next day to quite the scene in their villa and have to backtrack to figure out exactly what happened to them…and that’s when they discover that it’s worse than they first thought: the groom is missing.  And so, the three remaining guys set off searching for clues in an attempt to figure out where they may have been the previous night in order to (hopefully) locate their missing friend while finding themselves in increasingly ridiculous shenanigans along the way.  It makes for an interesting story and it isn’t so ridiculous that it’s completely unbelievable as is the case with most comedies. 

The storytelling approach worked well in this film: they took a page from J.J. Abrams and used his signature “start in the middle of things and explain how the characters found themselves in this situation” approach (fitting since Bradley Cooper portrayed the character of Phil).  Eventually the story comes full circle and returns to the scene in which the audience views at the beginning of the movie although we see it from a different angle.  Then it proceeds from there as our protagonists continue to look for their friend and attempt to make it home before the wedding.

And a final note…the slideshow with the pictures from the trip to Vegas that plays during the credits is actually quite funny.  I found myself wondering if those were staged or taken while the cast was actually out partying.  Quite frankly, I don’t see how even a great actor can look that wasted without actually being wasted.

Overall, The Hangover is not a great comedy but the situation is believable.  It’s not overly stupid with ridiculously exaggerated situations as are most comedies and it’s worth watching.  I won’t say that it’s worth paying the price of theater admission because I’d imagine most of my readers would say that this movie is worth the price of a rental but not a trip to the theater.  Honestly, I’d have to agree, but I took one for the team.

I suggest giving it a watch, whether you pay for theater admission or wait for it to be released on DVD.  If you’ve seen it (or even if you haven’t), feel free to share your thoughts.

When In Rome…

Alright, after waiting a couple of weeks on a friend whom I had promised to watch this film with, I finally got a chance to see it.  It still took me another week to finally write this review, so I do apologize for the wait.  But as the saying goes…better late than never.

I want to start this review off by saying that I did heed my friend’s recommendation to read the book before seeing the movie.  I thought the book was absolutely amazing (thanks Meredith for the recommendation) and I couldn’t wait to see how it played out on film.  I honestly didn’t expect much though, seeing as how I’ve seen some lousy book-to-film adaptations in the past.  It was an entertaining film in its own right, but since I read the book, I do have some negative things to say about some of the changes and omissions.  I am going to give details, so if you have a desire to read the book or see the movie, I’d suggest not reading any further until you have done so.

A lot was changed when this story made the transition to film.  And in my humble opinion, a lot of these changes were completely unnecessary.  Let’s start with the beginning of the film, shall we?  The beginning of the film started out showing and explaining the rituals that follow a pope’s death.  I suppose that could be necessary on film for establishing the context of the events and giving a bit of explanation for those who don’t understand what goes on after a pope’s death.  But considering recent history has seen a new pope elected, I’d say most everyone who would be viewing this film is at least nominally aware of what goes on in such a situation.  From the introduction the movie proceeds to the creation of the antimatter at CERN and the murder of Silvano Bentivoglio (Carmen Argenziano), a character who never appeared in the book (in the book, he had a different name and a different relationship to one of our protagonists).  In contrast, the book begins with the death of Leonardo Vetra, Vittoria’s father and partner in the antimatter research.   This was research that only she and her father were involved in due to its secrecy and importance.  In the movie, however, we see that there is an entire team of scientists working on the project.  Unfortunately, this makes it more likely that word would get out regarding the research and that the wrong people would find out about it, completely negating some of the mystery and further diminishing the fact that Silvano had spoken to the Pope and Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) in the first place.  And while we’re on the subject of CERN, Maximilian Kohler, the director of CERN and an important character in the book, wasn’t even present at any point in the movie.  Instead his role was assimilated into that of Commander Richter’s.

The next significant difference I noticed was the fact that instead of being called in the middle of the night by Kohler, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) was instead approached by a representative from the Vatican in person.  That change doesn’t really matter much, however, I didn’t agree with the fact that the movie takes the approach of having the Vatican contact Langdon rather than CERN.  In the movie, Langdon flies directly to the Vatican, whereas in the book he flies straight to CERN where Kohler explains the situation and then introduces him to Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer) and antimatter is explained.  They then discover that the largest sample of antimatter has been stolen and when it turns up in the Vatican, they proceed there in an attempt to locate it.

There is also some differences in the makeup of the Vatican authorities in the movie.  In the book, Olivetti is the commander of the Swiss Guard; in the movie, he is replaced with a new character named Maximilian Richter (Stellan Skarsgård) who seems to be a combination of Kohler and Rocher (whose character actually seems to have been replaced with Father Simeon).  Olivetti becomes the head of the Vatican police in the film.  Chartrand appears to be portrayed much the same as he was in the book.

There are a few more changes that I found significant.  The Assassin (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) was actually supposed to be Arabic, but in the film his character was changed so that he appeared to be of western origins.  I don’t know if this was some effort to be politically correct, but if that is in fact the case, I think this is one of those cases where being politically correct detracts from the story.  It takes away the entire motivation for the character.  In both the book and the film, the Assassin believes he is truly working for the Illuminati.  The real difference lies in the fact that the book’s Assassin is Arabic and his driving factor is revenge for the deaths of so many Muslims at the behest of the Catholic Church during the Crusades.  Politically correct or not, the Crusades were dark times for Christianity in general and such a motivation would certainly add depth to the character of the Assassin.  Instead, he was portrayed as simply another “gun for hire” as is evidenced when he explains to Langdon that those who hire him always find it important that he knows that his acts are for “Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah.”  I’m paraphrasing there, since I cannot seem to locate the precise quote and it has been a couple of weeks. Regardless, even if it was a matter of political correctness, if we choose walk on eggshells and ignore the events of our past, then we are ultimately doomed to repeat them.

Yet another difference was the fact that Cardinal Baggia (Marc Fiorini) survived in the film.  Baggia was the fourth and final cardinal, and he was favored to become the next pope.  When Langdon failed to rescue him in the book, the situation felt hopeless.  I felt that was diminished when Langdon saved him in the film.  But don’t get me wrong, I did appreciate how the at first hesitant onlookers joined together to help free him in one of those rare occasions when everyone seems to come together.

The final change that I deemed significant was the fifth Illuminati brand.  In the book, it was the legendary Illuminati Diamond – an elaborate ambigram consisting of a combination of the four ancient scientific elements of earth, air, fire, and water.  In the film, it wasn’t even an ambigram.  It was two crossed keys crossed over one another and turned upside down, an obvious reference to St. Peter’s crucifixion.  The problem I have with this is that it really makes no sense as to why the Illuminati would have used this symbol as their final brand in the first place.  This did however, set the stage for one change I did appreciate.  In both the movie and the book, it was stated that Langdon had petitioned for years to get access to the Vatican Archives so that he could view Galileo’s Diagramma in order to finish a book he had been writing.  In the movie, he was rewarded with the final copy of Diagramma for his assistance; in the book, he was given the final brand (the Illuminati Diamond) on indefinite loan – a mere keepsake that served no real purpose other than being an interesting artifact.

I should also mention one insignificant change: the book was actually a prequel to Da Vinci Code, but the movie was actually a sequel.

I feel that I’ve probably spent a lot of time expressing my negative opinions about most of the changes and omissions (some of which I can agree with).  As a result, this review is probably a bit misleading.  I did enjoy the movie.  It is very entertaining and it is very well put together.  It does an adequate job of creating a sense of urgency and suspense, although I felt the pacing was slightly too fast.  The core of my issue with the movie is simply that I felt the transition from book to film could’ve been handled better.  I’d be interested to find out why some of the indicated changes were made.  If you’ve never read the book, you’ll probably have no problems with the movie.  You’ll be able to watch it and take it for what it is and be entertained and intrigued.  It’s definately worth watching in the theater.

But as I always say, don’t take my word for it, give it a chance and make up your own mind.

“I saw a man, not a machine.”

I prefer the Matrix interpretation of the man vs. machine concept, but that’s mostly for its philosophical and theological aspects. Terminator, however, is an entirely different model (see what I did there?).  Unlike its predecessor, this Terminator film wasn’t a complete waste of time.

First of all, let me apologize to all the die-hard Terminator fans out there. I’m not an expert on the Terminator timeline, and quite frankly I think it’s all rather convoluted anyways.  But…in my opinion, one of the central themes of the Terminator franchise has always been: can one really change the future? If you go back to the original film, you have the T-800 attempting to kill Sarah Connor in an attempt to prevent John Connor from being born.  In T2, the machines have sent the latest model, the T-1000 back to kill John.  Obviously, the machines fail again and SkyNet is supposedly stopped.  Then, twelve years later, T3 was released.  I’ll be honest here, I thought that film was so terrible I can’t even remember much of it.  The only useful thing it contributed to the franchise was the introduction of Kate Brewster, who would eventually become the wife of John Connor.  Oh, and that song that Gavin Rossdale did with Blue Man Group…

Alright, so now here we are with the release of Terminator: Salvation.  This installment is the first in the series to actually take place in the future.  And obviously, despite the best efforts of John and Sarah Connor in the previous films, SkyNet has still declared war on humanity.  Salvationtakes place before the T-800’s are introduced, just as the Resistance is planning a strike against SkyNet that would end the war once and for all.

I don’t really want to write about the plot, but I will say that I thought it was well-written (certainly an improvement over T3).  The simple fact that it takes place in the future makes it a different type of film than the others.  We see more of the actual war taking place, which is a breath of fresh air for the franchise, instead of just the Connors being on the run from the latest model of Terminator, though Connor (Christian Bale) is still a primary target, as is his father Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin).

The underlying theme I got out of this film was hope.  Hope for humanity’s ultimate survival against a superior opponent.  This very hope is personified in John Connor and the Resistance’s willingness to disobey orders and follow him as he attempts to rescue Kyle Reese from SkyNet (which one could even go so far as to argue is a selfish goal).  His very name carries enough weight to persuade members of the Resistance to ignore what General Ashdown (Michael Ironside) has ordered them to do long enough for him to accomplish his goal.  Whether or not his goal will ultimately save humanity from the machines still remains to be seen, but it illustrates an important lesson in hope regardless.

The film also raises an important question: What is it that makes us human?  This concept is illustrated with the character of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) who we see at the beginning of the film as a man on death row in the year 2003.  He is convinced to donate his body to Cyberdine for the sake of science and he is promised he will live again to get a second chance.  He struggles throughout the film with whether or not he is a man or a machine and which side he really belongs to.  What it really comes down to is whether or not it is our physical shell that makes us human or whether not it is our heart and soul.   

Overall, this film puts a fresh spin on a 25-year-old franchise while throwing in enough to keep old fans happy and it features a decent storyline and some great special effects to boot.  It’s entertaining and worth the $8 or so to catch it in a theater.

But don’t take my word for it, I recommend giving it a watch and making up your own mind.

My “Rosetta Stone”

In my last post, I mentioned Gareth Higgins’s book How Movies Helped Save My Soul: Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significant Films.  In this book, he brings up the concept of what he calls his “Rosetta Stone.”  For those of you that don’t know…the Rosetta Stone is an ancient Egyptian artifact which enabled scholars to translate hieroglyphics. But, for our purposes, the term is applied a bit differently.

Higgins refers to his “Rosetta Stone” as being more or less a code of conduct for watching films.  Items on his list range from never reading a review before going to see a film to always going with a couple of friends to never eating popcorn while watching a film.  Now, some of these may seem a bit silly at first, but he actually goes on to explain their logic.  And I have to say, I agree with most of them.

Back when I was “moderating” the small group at my old church, we spent one of the first meetings coming up with our own version of Higgins’s “Rosetta Stone.”  I still use this concept most of the time when watching films.  I say most of the time because I only follow it to the letter when I am alone, else my friends might just think I’m crazy.  But in all seriousness, it’s hard to apply the concept when seeing a film with a friend who isn’t as into looking at film in the same way as you are.  To some people seeing a movie is just a way to blow off steam and enjoy some mindless entertainment for a couple of hours, to others it’s a deeper experience.  For me, it’s usually an experience, although I do indulge in a guilty pleasure from time to time.

So, let’s get to the meat of this post.  My “Rosetta Stone.”  It’s actually pretty simple, and I’ll explain my reasoning as well.

1) Always go with friends whenever possible. – I love spending time with my friends. And I love having someone to discuss films with. I use the term “whenever possible” because I’ve accepted the fact that most people just don’t have the time or the desire to go watch a movie as much as I do anymore.

2) Preferrably, give the film and it’s implications some time to sink in before talking about it. – This is self-explanatory. Allow some time to think about what you’ve just seen before getting into a discussion about it.  Everyone needs a few minutes to gather their thoughts.

3) Don’t drink during a movie. – Yeah, this is a personal preference. It will increase the chances of having to get up during the film and that’s not something I like to do, so I choose not to have anything to drink.  Higgins said he doesn’t eat popcorn, and neither do I usually, but that’s just because I’m not crazy about popcorn. I will, however, sometimes grab something to eat while there, but not often. If I do, I’ll try to make sure it’s not loud candy. That’s just annoying to everyone around you.

4) Always watch the credits. – This may sound strange or a bit OCD to you. But as someone who edits video, I understand the fact that it took someone time to put all that together and that makes it as much a part of the film as the rest of it. And let’s face it, we live in a day and age where post-credit bonus scenes are becoming more and more common.  I don’t like to miss things.

And that’s pretty much it, to be perfectly honest. They’re simple and straight to the point.  They may seem a bit odd, but that’s just me.  Maybe you have a few quirks of your own that would fall into this category.  I’d personally love to hear them.

Until next time…

“The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of” Part II

And so here we are again, continuing the story of my background with film and how it has played an important role in my life.  In my last entry, I promised I would get into the details of my later college and post-college years.  And so, here we go…

In the fall of 2002 I transferred to a small Southern Baptist college in Kentucky to finish up my final two years.  At the time it was known as Cumberland College, though today it is known as the University of the Cumberlands.  My final year there, I had most of my business classes wrapped up so I began to focus more on the communications classes that were needed for my minor.   Among those were Dr. Semmel’s History of Film I and II and Animation History.

Those three classes were probably my favorite three classes in my entire five years of college.  The first semester of film history covered everything from the beginning of film up until about 1950. I spent most of the semester researching and working on a profile of Humphrey Bogart.  The second semester covered everything from about 1950 up until the present day (which back then was early 2004).  I did more research and completed a director profile on George Lucas as well as a genre study on mobster-films which took a look at the original Scarface and The Godfather.  Animation history was pretty much the same type of class and I did my research on the history of Japanese anime and its introduction to mainstream American audiences.  That last semester was pretty hectic with lots of research going on at once. I’d frequently have to take a lower grade on one paper just because I was unable to keep pace with both classes at once (I’m easily distracted).

I graduated after that semester was over and I was promoted to a shift manager position at Blockbuster where I had been working since the previous summer.  Blockbuster employees get five free rentals per week, so between June of 2003 and February of 2005 when I finally left that job behind, I did a lot of movie watching. Not just rentals, either. With no schoolwork to occupy my time, I was at the theater once or twice a week. Whenever I could get someone to go with me.  I had a pretty good group of friends who liked to go back then. And if they wouldn’t go, my dad was always up for it.  Unfortunately, he passed away at the end of 2004 and after I moved to Knoxville in August 2005, most of my friends that I’d usually go watch movies with no longer came to Knoxville as much. For the most part, I was on my own when it came to film.  Going alone really wouldn’t bother me that much; catching a late movie by myself was always a sort of reflection time for me in many respects. But over time, it began to wear me down and I found myself less motivated to get out and go unless I was meeting friends.

At some point in 2004, I discovered a very interesting book titled How Movies Helped Save My Soul: Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significant Films by Gareth Higgins.  During my final years in college, I developed an interest in religion and how it relates to film, so this book caught my attention. Within this book is a number of film analyzations talking about issues relating to Christianity that can be found within films that one wouldn’t otherwise think to look for them.  It really opened up my eyes to the subject and I began to look at movies differently when I watched them.  There was one quote in the book where something was said about movie theaters being similar to modern-day cathedrals (I can’t find it in the book, and I can’t remember if Higgins said it or if it was in the foreword written by Tony Campolo), and that statement really struck a chord with me.  At the time I had probably been going to the theater more than I had church, and in a lot of ways it made sense to me.  Before long, I was buying everyone I knew who loved movies a copy of this book.

In October of 2005, I started up a small group based on this book at Cumberland Hope Community Church.  We met at my pastor’s house every other week and we’d watch a movie and discuss it from a spiritual standpoint. There were some movies that we would just have nothing to say about, and there were other movies where we’d spend more than two hours in discussion.  But, it was a small town church and over time interest began to wane.  One week in May 2006, it was just my pastor and I and the topic was “controversy.”  So for that meeting, we had made plans to go watch The Da Vinci Code, as it had just been released in theaters.  We watched it, we discussed it, and that was that. That was the final meeting for that class.

Now here we are, present day, and I still don’t get out to watch movies as much as I used to.  I think more than anything I just want people to go with me.  Sometimes I feel as though life’s moved on without me and people just have better things to do than hang out with me discussing film and philosophy.  I’d love to start up a class here in Knoxville like the one I used to host years ago, but the opportunity just hasn’t presented itself.  For now I’m planning to make an attempt to get back into the habit of going to catch a movie at least once a week. It’d be great to have company, but if not…then so be it.

The purpose of this blog will be a review blog of sorts.  I plan to go catch a movie, and write my own analysis of it. Like the class I used to host, maybe it’ll be from a spiritual standpoint, maybe it’ll just be a general review.  Either way, this will contain my thoughts and nothing more.

As I mentioned, the last film we watched in my small group was The Da Vinci Code.  So, I think it will be strangely fitting to do Angels & Demons for my first review.  I am currently making an attempt to read the book before the film is released…which I really should get back to right now.

Unless something else comes to mind…see you in a few weeks…

“The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of…” Part I

Film seems to have always played a major role in my life, whether or not I realized it at the time.  As I look back on my life growing up, I can see that now. I can remember as a child when my parents would take me to the theater to watch whatever caught my attention at the time, whether it be the latest animated film or the latest action blockbuster. I can also remember my parents taking me to the local video rental store (back before the days of Blockbuster, Netflix, etc.) to pick up a VHS copy of whatever I wanted to watch back when I had a weird fascination with horror films.  Fortunately I grew up with parents that didn’t really care what films I watched. I suppose people just didn’t care as much about those things in the 80’s and early 90’s.  I like to think I turned out just fine.

As I grew older, I wanted to get out and go to the theater more often. Of course, my parents thought I was too young to go by myself and for awhile it was always a battle to get them to take me as often as I wanted to go.  Finally, they gave in and just started dropping me off.  I suppose it began as a way to get out of the house and away from the parents and meet up with friends.  The last film I can remember my parents actually staying for was Forrest Gump.  That was when I was in 8th grade.

Eventually it became an obsession. There was rarely a week up until the time I graduated high school that I couldn’t be found at the local theater.  I couldn’t tell you now whether or not it was a developing love of film or just something to do in the small town I grew up in, but I would like to attribute it to the former.

It was when I first watched the original Star Wars Trilogy during my 7th grade year (it actually may have been my 8th grade year) that film slowly began to take on a different meaning for me, although the realization had yet to dawn on me.  Star Wars: A New Hope was airing on TV one night and I sat down to watch it with my dad.  I remember it was shortly before Thanksgiving and they were airing all three films over the course of the next few nights.  I had never seen any of them, though for a long time growing up I often confused Spaceballs with Star Wars.  I remember first hearing about the Force and my dad telling me during a commercial break that he interpreted the Force as being a reference to God.  I can’t say that I agree with his interpretation, looking back, but I can definately see where he was coming from.  I think I fell asleep somewhere around the time of the Death Star assault.  I proceeded to watch the next two Star Wars films over the course of the next few nights, wrapping the series up by watching Return of the Jedi in the guest bedroom at my grandmother’s house in Cincinnati while visiting for Thanksgiving as we did every year back in those days.  I enjoyed the films and eventually went back and watched the first one without falling asleep.  That was my first brush with the subject of religion and film.

I think things began to take shape at that point.  I had always had an abundance of creative energy inside of me, and growing up I often spent a lot of my time writing.  Eventually some friends had talked me into giving roleplaying games a try.  I humored them and gave it a chance, but I wouldn’t say I was ever really hardcore about it or anything.  Most roleplaying games back then were of the fantasy genre, and that just wasn’t really my thing (though I did later thoroughly enjoy the Lord of the Rings films).  I think it was about that time that I had ventured into the world of Star Wars novels, beginning with Timothy Zahn’s Heir to the Empire, which still to this day remains one of my favorite works of fiction.  Also around that time, I had discovered that there existed a Star Wars roleplaying game.  Now that struck my interest.  It allowed me to expend those creative energies, entertain my friends, and dabble around in the rich universe that George Lucas had created.  I know, I was a nerd, right?

Fast forward a few years.  The year was 1999.  It was Christmas.  I had just received my first DVD player and my first DVD.  A little film known as The Matrix.  I had never made it to the theater to see that movie, but I had wanted to.  I had also heard that it was the perfect film for this bizarre new digital format known as DVD.  So, not long after getting the DVD player hooked up, I popped in the DVD and sat down to watch it with my dad.

I think Neo said it best when he said, “Whoah…”  I was completely amazed at the special effects as the Wachowski brothers combined their love of kung fu, gunplay, Japanese anime, philosophy, and comic books into this amazing work of art.  Again, back then all I saw was the surface layer, but it left a seed that would grow over time.

Fast forward a couple more years.  2001.  I can’t say that I kept up my schedule of going to the theater on a weekly basis during my college years, but I still went somewhat regularly.  Over the course of the next year, things really began to change in terms of my outlook on film.  Star Wars fanfilms began to spring up all over the internet and I watched a short film known as Duality for the first time.  I was amazed that some amateur filmmaker could create something that looked so convincing.  I was intrigued and I really started to research and take an interest in how films were made.  I dabbled with my first non-linear editing system back then and realized that I really wanted to create.

In the same year, I began dating a girl who loved old films. Black and white films.  At that particular point in my life, I couldn’t fathom how anyone could enjoy something so old and primitive compared to what we have in the present.  And of course, like any good boyfriend, I agreed to sit down and watch some of them with her.  And what do you know?  I actually ended up enjoying some of them.  I especially enjoyed the old Humphrey Bogart movies.

One of my favorite Bogey films was John Huston’s 1941 film The Maltese Falcon.  It remains one of my personal all-time favorites.  There is a line in that film that has really stuck with me over the years.  Those of you who are film buffs have no doubt figured out what it is.  It is the title of this blog; it is the title of this post: “The stuff dreams are made of.”  Okay, I admit, the line itself didn’t originally come from this film; it was derived from a line in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest.  But that doesn’t make it any less relevant.

You see, I’ve always fancied myself somewhat of a dreamer.  I’ve always been extremely creative and eventually that creative energy turned into wanting to make films.  Not that I ever really lived any of that dream, though I have written a few screenplays.  Some people tell me I should actually do something with some of them.  The truth is…I wouldn’t know where to begin.

I’ll discuss in more detail my later college years and my post-college years in part two of this entry, as it’s getting a bit long-winded at the moment.

Until next time…