Rate That Movie 2!: Electric Boogaloo

[NSpan]

Next up is Attack the Block, Midnight in Paris, and Warrior. I'm really trying to catch up here..

[numbersix]

Well, in one way it was a throwaway joke, but the increasing "focus" on the division between creationism and darwinism perhaps prompted my comment. I know you're a Christian apologist (or soft Christian, as I like to all you), so no offence intended. That's what I get for watching so many Chris Hitchens videos over the holidays.

As for The Tree of Life, I suppose throughtout Malick's films I've never seen anything distinctly Christian, although I'm sure a Christian interpretation is possible. But his prioritisation of the relationship between humanity and nature (and most importantly, the tragedy when our relationship with nature is damaged, thus damaging our bonds with those around us. Or sometimes vice versa) makes me think that they are Christian only in the very broadest sense of the term. You damn Christians, you can't just take forgiveness and the acceptance of death from the rest of us spiritual and non-spiritualists and try to get away with it!

As it's quite possible I may have missed them, I'm curious to see what made you see The Tree of Life as OVERTLY Christian, as opposed to having a sense of humanity and humane joy that many religions, and, hell, even philosophies, also consider crucial.

[NSpan]

A lot of questions that arise within Christianity are the same questions that arise within any self-aware philosophy. Keep in mind, Christianity was shaped as much by Platonic thought as it was its Mosaic predecessor, Judaism. Also worth noting, the terms "philosophy" and "theology" were basically interchangeable up until around the 18th century.

So, as I said, Malick's film should resonate with anybody with "spiritual" questions. But his particular (and personal) framing device is Christianity. "The Problem of Evil" and the Book of Job are at the forefront of his seemingly loose narrative. I'm sure you noticed the protagonists initials..

After a quick google search, I found a short essay/review of the film by (theology professor and priest) Robert Barron:

What could possibly tie together the following scenes: a flock of birds cavorting in breathtakingly harmonious patterns, the meeting of flowing lava and crashing waves, a larger dinosaur dominating a smaller one, a young boy throwing a baseball through a window just because he is forbidden to do so, a depressed middle-aged man sitting in a coldly modernistic office building, and a meteor crashing into the primordial earth?

If I am at all correct in my reading of Terrence Malick’s meditative film, “The Tree of Life,” in which those and many other seemingly disparate scenes occur, what ties them together is that they are all ingredient in the plan and purpose of God. I realize how pretentious that can sound, but this is a filmmaker (and a film) with very grand ambitions indeed.

The movie opens with a quotation from the book of Job: “where were you when I founded the earth…while the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38: 4,7)?

These are some of the first lines of the magnificent speech that God delivers to Job, the righteous man who had been beset with every imaginable suffering and who had challenged God to explain himself.

Malick’s film opens with a couple (played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain), who have been informed that their 19 year old son has died and who are experiencing a Job-like confusion and indignation: how could God have done this to them and to their son?

God’s answer to Job is puzzling, for it does not directly address the matter at hand; instead, it unfolds as a grand tour of the cosmos, in all of its strangeness, beauty, and complexity, culminating with a detailed description of the virtues of Leviathan and Behemoth.

Malick’s film mimics the speech of God in the measure that it takes us away from the suffering couple to a visually stunning sequence of scenes depicting dynamics within the cosmos, from the birth of stars and the splitting of cells to the demise of the dinosaurs and the ballet-like movements of a jellyfish swimming toward the surface of the ocean.

The author of the book of Job and Terrence Malick both are suggesting that the “answer” to this most painful and searching of questions is found through the widest possible broadening of one’s perspective, so as to see what God is up to everywhere in his creation.

On Malick’s telling, the universe—from its primordial beginnings to now—is marked by a play of two forces, nature and grace. Nature is strong, conflictual, hard-edged, and violent; whereas grace is gentle, loving, and forgiving. Both are constantly in play, constantly in tension with one another, and somehow both are part of God’s design.

One of the most striking images in the film--the meeting of lava and ocean wave that I mentioned above—is a particularly apt symbol of the way that nature and grace come together to produce something beautiful.

Having made his literally “cosmic” point, Malick sharpens his focus and returns in flashback to the young couple now just beginning their family. The father, played with convincing understatement by Pitt, is a decent man who loves his children, but he is, first and foremost, a disciplinarian, eager to make his boys tough and self-reliant. He is the embodiment of the principle of nature.

The mother, delicately evoked by Chastain, is the avatar of grace. She is playful with her children, exuberant, lively, sensitive, quick to forgive.

It would be quite wrong, I think, to read them simply as evil and good, respectively. Both parents awaken something positive and negative in their children; each calls out to the other for completion. . . .

What I find particularly fascinating—and it brings us to the theological heart of the film—is that both nature and grace are grounded in God and are part of his providential design. The brutal and the gentle; the violent and the peaceful; the competitive and the cooperative come together in a way that produces the rough order that we see in the cosmos and in human affairs. Thomas Aquinas, very much influenced by the book of Job, said that God is a “wise provider” who permits certain evils in order to bring about a greater good in the totality of his creation, and I think Terrence Malick is making much the same point in “Tree of Life.”

Perhaps just a word in closing about the title. In the third chapter of Genesis, we hear that Adam and Eve, after having eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were expelled from the Garden of Eden and denied access to the Tree of Life.

What prevented them from participating in life, in other words, was the attempt to gain a knowledge of the play of good and evil that belongs to God alone. Grasping at perfect knowledge, they fell.

A basic message of the Bible is that, in the play of good and evil, in the tension between nature and grace, God is up to something beautiful, though we are unable to grasp it totally. The way to life, therefore, is a path of surrender and acceptance. I think that “Tree of Life” is communicating this same difficult but vital lesson.

[silversurfer19]

Continuing movies I've been watching over Christmas, I also saw Midnight In Paris (7.5/10). As someone who has been largely unable to find a connect with Woody Allen movies over the years due to leading characters who are largely unlikable, it was a very pleasant surprise to find this movie a thoroughly entertaining and delightfully charming romantic drama which highlights the beauties of Paris and invites us into a creative imagination filled to the brim with all the nostalgic wonder cinema can offer. It's a postcard to Paris, an ode to days gone by, and a beautifully written insight into life. I found myself falling in love with the spark which has held Paris aloft for so long, and whisked along with Owen Wilson's character on a tour of the wonders of the arts. Touching and sentimental (though perhaps a little predictable after the initial twist), the movie is Allen's most accessible and entertaining movie in years, and one I thoroughly enjoyed.

[transformers2]

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol 8/10
Very good action flick. The action sequences are very well-done and are on quite a grand scale. Jermey Renner and Paula Patton were solid additions to the cast and Simon Pegg was great as usual. The only downside was the lack of a good villian. Definitely better than 3 and on par with the original (never saw the second one).

[numbersix]

NSpan, I'll get back to you later on Tree of Life, but it's certainly an interesting angle...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: 5/10
Honestly, after 7 films of poor storytelling, awful pacing, and more deus ex machina's than a conference on Horace, what was I expecting besides closure? At least it ended, making it better than the last film. But what's frustrating is that there could have been a good story if the screenwriter (who wrote all but one of the films) was more ambitious and made dramatic changes to the novels. While the first few films were at least fun and magical, the forced gravitas in the last few films isn't particularly well carried off, mostly due to the restrictions of the cast and key talent. The direction is dull, trying to come off as a Lord of the Ring with its endless palette of greys, but really it's just bland and undramatic (same goes for the big battle sequence between the good and evil forces). And did I mention the deus ex machinas? There's one scene where Harry realises that he';s the last Horcrux and needs to die to kill Voldemort, and literally within a minute he has a "resurrection stone" in his hand. Rather than have Harry try to deal with his awful destiny, the audience already knows what's going to happen and thus the tension is totally ruined! This is Storytelling 101 and one of the biggest franchises in cinematic history can't even get that right. Sheesh. It's not all bad, though. The battled between Voldemort and Harry was decent, and there are some nice visual touches. But honestly as franchises go I kinda wish I sat this one out, as there was literally only one decent film in the series.

50/50: 5/10
I was hoping this would be an interesting movie about men dealing with cancer. But honestly it was a lot more shallow than that. Ultimately, it's a tired bros-before-hos comedy with a dash of cancer, but not really enough to really make me care for a character who tries to appear like a nice guy but is actually a big jerk. And that in itself could be a theme to work on but there's no real sense of payoff at the end, as the film is more concerned with showing how crazy and hysterical all the women in their lives are (the kooky shrink, the overbearing mother, the nasty ex, the moronic girl he sleeps with, etc). Levitt does his best but the script and direction contribute to make this a deceptively nasty film.

Mission Impossible 4: 5/10
It's a trilogy of mediocre reviews, although this was the best of the 3 (maybe it deserves a 5.5). Ultimately, though, the problem with this film is that it's so damn aware it's part of a franchise that it settles into a cosy little corner as some sort of a big-budget episode. It just doesn't feel satisfying enough as its own film. It's just another mission. Admittedly, at least it's not like the silly flamboyance of Woo's MI2 (which I couldn't finish), and isn't as forgettable as MI3 (who thought casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as an arch villain would be a good idea?), but it seems more like a Bond film and more throwaway, like an excuse for big set-pieces (skyscaper climbing, Kremlin infiltration, sandstorm chase) and varied locations (Dubai, Mumbai, Moscow!). I'll give it to Brad Bird, he did make those set-pieces very exciting, and the play up to comedy (Simon Pegg's character) did make the movie entertaining. But the characters weren't very engaging (the whole Jeremy Renner character was a huge let down and ultimately felt like it was setting him up for future escapades), the story not particularly unique, and ultimately it's a good movie to pass the time but I doubt anyone will remember it for very long.


Bellflower: 6/10
It's probably a failure, but it's an interesting one. 2 fun-loving young men (fratboys on a break? College drop-outs? Stoners?) are obsessed with their comic-book vision of an apocalypse and start building a flamethrower as part of their masturbatory response. One starts to get in a relationship yet when things go sour the nastiness of both men is revealed. What happens may not be reality, but rather the puerile way in which these young men deal with reality. It become shocking to a ridiculous level, but not only does it suggest that it may be a reverie, it is ultimately a parody of fratboy/fanbo mentality, their obsession with manly images and attitudes towards women which really masks a pathetic inability to connect with people. Playing the whole "this was a dream" card is a bit clunky, but overall I found it an interesting critique of a certain type of attitude and behaviour, one that I've seen on many an occasion. I also liked the naturalistic performances and the interesting cinematography (the camera was a custom-built old camera lens hooked up to a laptop).

And just to ensure I'm not an entirely negative nellie, I rewatched two films recently. In Bruges is just as good the second time as the first, with the brilliant dialogue making the film still feel fresh. Also Back to the Future Part 2 stands the test of time as a worthy sequel. Some really interesting ideas and some brilliant scenes, it's only a shame Part 3 was such a let-down. It was also funny to see one of the future elements come true. There's a scene where Marty helps two future kids plug in an old arcade machine, but once they realise you use your hands they walk off, disgusted. Well, Zemeckis and co got that one right.

[Buscemi]

If it makes you feel better (or worse), 50/50 is semi-autobiographical. Many of those people you described were real people in the screenwriter's life. And Seth Rogen is more or less playing himself (him and the screenwriter are best friends in real life).

[numbersix]

I'm sure for comic license many parts of the screenplay were exaggerated.

[Buscemi]

Hence me saying semi-autobiographical. But Will Reiser and Seth Rogen would attest that the majority of it really happened.

[Buscemi]

The Adventures of Tintin ***.5/****

A completely worthy successor to the Indiana Jones movies and one of the most fun movies of 2011. Another fun throwback to the Saturday afternoon matinees of the past, Steven Spielberg and company put everything they've got into creating this adaptation of Herge's comic book series and it shows. The action is top-notch, the animation is nice and detailed, the 3-D is well done and the characters are admirable and enjoyable (my favorite was Snowy, Tintin's trusty companion). Add in an Oscar-worthy score by John Williams and a great title sequence that could be its own film and you have possibly the best animated feature this year (yes, better than Rango). I'm already wanting the sequel to happen.

Also, I saw this on IMAX and it's definitely worth the few extra dollars.

[Chienfantome]

I went to see MI4 tonight with Ron B. I'm too tired and I drank too much afterwards to write something elaborated, but it's a fun action film. A bit too much just an action film, but a satisfying one certainly. 7/10

It's also funny to read about your review of Midnight in Paris, Surfer, because I talked about it with Ron tonight, as he told me he watched it on his computer last night, around Midnight... while he was in Paris of course !! Midnight in Paris at midnight in Paris

[Geezer]

NSpan, I'll get back to you later on Tree of Life, but it's certainly an interesting angle...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: 5/10
Honestly, after 7 films of poor storytelling, awful pacing, and more deus ex machina's than a conference on Horace, what was I expecting besides closure? At least it ended, making it better than the last film. But what's frustrating is that there could have been a good story if the screenwriter (who wrote all but one of the films) was more ambitious and made dramatic changes to the novels. While the first few films were at least fun and magical, the forced gravitas in the last few films isn't particularly well carried off, mostly due to the restrictions of the cast and key talent. The direction is dull, trying to come off as a Lord of the Ring with its endless palette of greys, but really it's just bland and undramatic (same goes for the big battle sequence between the good and evil forces). And did I mention the deus ex machinas? There's one scene where Harry realises that he';s the last Horcrux and needs to die to kill Voldemort, and literally within a minute he has a "resurrection stone" in his hand. Rather than have Harry try to deal with his awful destiny, the audience already knows what's going to happen and thus the tension is totally ruined! This is Storytelling 101 and one of the biggest franchises in cinematic history can't even get that right. Sheesh. It's not all bad, though. The battled between Voldemort and Harry was decent, and there are some nice visual touches. But honestly as franchises go I kinda wish I sat this one out, as there was literally only one decent film in the series.

50/50: 5/10
I was hoping this would be an interesting movie about men dealing with cancer. But honestly it was a lot more shallow than that. Ultimately, it's a tired bros-before-hos comedy with a dash of cancer, but not really enough to really make me care for a character who tries to appear like a nice guy but is actually a big jerk. And that in itself could be a theme to work on but there's no real sense of payoff at the end, as the film is more concerned with showing how crazy and hysterical all the women in their lives are (the kooky shrink, the overbearing mother, the nasty ex, the moronic girl he sleeps with, etc). Levitt does his best but the script and direction contribute to make this a deceptively nasty film.

Mission Impossible 4: 5/10
It's a trilogy of mediocre reviews, although this was the best of the 3 (maybe it deserves a 5.5). Ultimately, though, the problem with this film is that it's so damn aware it's part of a franchise that it settles into a cosy little corner as some sort of a big-budget episode. It just doesn't feel satisfying enough as its own film. It's just another mission. Admittedly, at least it's not like the silly flamboyance of Woo's MI2 (which I couldn't finish), and isn't as forgettable as MI3 (who thought casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as an arch villain would be a good idea?), but it seems more like a Bond film and more throwaway, like an excuse for big set-pieces (skyscaper climbing, Kremlin infiltration, sandstorm chase) and varied locations (Dubai, Mumbai, Moscow!). I'll give it to Brad Bird, he did make those set-pieces very exciting, and the play up to comedy (Simon Pegg's character) did make the movie entertaining. But the characters weren't very engaging (the whole Jeremy Renner character was a huge let down and ultimately felt like it was setting him up for future escapades), the story not particularly unique, and ultimately it's a good movie to pass the time but I doubt anyone will remember it for very long.


Bellflower: 6/10
It's probably a failure, but it's an interesting one. 2 fun-loving young men (fratboys on a break? College drop-outs? Stoners?) are obsessed with their comic-book vision of an apocalypse and start building a flamethrower as part of their masturbatory response. One starts to get in a relationship yet when things go sour the nastiness of both men is revealed. What happens may not be reality, but rather the puerile way in which these young men deal with reality. It become shocking to a ridiculous level, but not only does it suggest that it may be a reverie, it is ultimately a parody of fratboy/fanbo mentality, their obsession with manly images and attitudes towards women which really masks a pathetic inability to connect with people. Playing the whole "this was a dream" card is a bit clunky, but overall I found it an interesting critique of a certain type of attitude and behaviour, one that I've seen on many an occasion. I also liked the naturalistic performances and the interesting cinematography (the camera was a custom-built old camera lens hooked up to a laptop).

And just to ensure I'm not an entirely negative nellie, I rewatched two films recently. In Bruges is just as good the second time as the first, with the brilliant dialogue making the film still feel fresh. Also Back to the Future Part 2 stands the test of time as a worthy sequel. Some really interesting ideas and some brilliant scenes, it's only a shame Part 3 was such a let-down. It was also funny to see one of the future elements come true. There's a scene where Marty helps two future kids plug in an old arcade machine, but once they realise you use your hands they walk off, disgusted. Well, Zemeckis and co got that one right.

[Buscemi]

I went to see MI4 tonight with Ron B. I'm too tired and I drank too much afterwards to write something elaborated, but it's a fun action film. A bit too much just an action film, but a satisfying one certainly. 7/10

It's also funny to read about your review of Midnight in Paris, Surfer, because I talked about it with Ron tonight, as he told me he watched it on his computer last night, around Midnight... while he was in Paris of course !! Midnight in Paris at midnight in Paris

Did he pitch the concept of Midnight in Paris to Gertrude Stein while there?

[Chienfantome]

We went to a restaurant with JOnas and friends of mine, and had a glass of champagne at midnight, and guess what happened then ? Scott Fitzgerald and Salvador Dali entered the restaurant

[undeadmonkey]

@six, i think your being harsh on HP8, he dropped the resurrection stone before he.... ummm... needed it, totally agree with you on 50/50, it could have been much better, but was very forgettable, and i think you are being nice with Mission Impossible, besides the decent direction, it was beyond stale.