Sunday, July 28, 2013

Movie Trivia Answers

Sorry this is late...the winner was my friend John from SoCal, who not only one, but got a perfect score of 25, answering every question correctly and guessing the connection.  Hats off to John!

Here are the quotes with the answers...the connection is that all of the quotes come from Steven Spielberg films...

1. "We're going to need a bigger boat" – Roy Scheider Jaws

2. "The list is life." Ben Kingsley Schindler’s List

3. "Give us free..." Djimon Honsou Amistad

4. "I'm keeping him..." Henry Thomas E.T.

5. "Bad form!!!' Dustin Hoffman Hook

6. "It's not the age, it's the mileage." Harrison Ford Raiders of the Lost Ark

7. "He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer lasting light bulb."
Tom Hanks Saving Private Ryan

8. "You know why the Yankees always win? 'Cause the other teams can't stop looking at those damn pinstripes!" Christopher Walken Catch Me if You Can

9. "Your scientists we're so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park

10. "This means something. This is important." Richard Dreyfuss Close Encounters of the Third Kind


Monday, July 15, 2013

Movie quote contest: Connections

 Let's have some summer fun.  Here are ten movie quotes.  They have a specific connection.  The name of the movie that the quote comes from will be worth one point, and the name of the actor or actress who spoke the line is worth 1 point.  The connection is worth 5 points.  Please e-mail your answers to losbascoms@mac.com...DO NOT PUT YOUR ANSWERS IN THE COMMENTS, OR OTHERS WILL SEE THEM...I WILL HAVE TO DELETE THEM.

Prize for the winner to be determined.  The contest will run until July 25 at 10PM Central Time.  Good luck!


1. "We're going to need a bigger boat"

2. "The list is life."

3.  "Give us free..."

4.  "I'm keeping him..."

5.  "Bad form!!!'

6.  "It's not the age, it's the mileage."

7.  "He better be worth it.  He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer lasting light bulb."

8.  "You know why the Yankees always win?  'Cause the other teams can't stop looking at those damn pinstripes!"

9.  "Your scientists we're so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

10.  "This means something.  This is important."

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Man Of Steel

Maybe this is because I was so young when I first saw it, but I have always measured every comic book film I have ever seen against Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie", wherein Christopher Reeve played the famous superhero from Krypton.  The reason I still feel this way is that version was able to perfectly balance the fun and seriousness that came with the territory.  Reeve's Superman is able to be at once funny and serious, and the movie could be both a lark and an epic.  The other crucial element to that film was Gene Hackman's perfectly executed Lex Luthor.  His Luthor is hell bent on both world domination and on the perfect burn to his idiot side kicks.  Having said that, "Man of Steel", does not measure up to Donner's version.  There are lots of reasons why this is, but even with that in mind, this movie has a lot to bring to the Superman mythology.  It is a great summer popcorn movie.

The plot is well known by now.  Jor-el (Russell Crowe) is a scientist on the doomed planet of Krypton.  He and his wife have just brought a baby son into the world named Kal-el, and they devise a way to get him off the planet before their planet implodes.  At the same time, military traitor General Zod has been convicted of treason and been placed with his cohorts into the Phantom Zone (a comic book version of suspended animation).  Since Zod also is off the planet, he vows to Kal-el's mother that he will seek and find Kal-el and exact his revenge upon his old nemesis Jor-el, whom he has murdered.  (On a side note, why didn't Jor-el just leave Zod in jail on the planet to be blown to bits with the rest of the planet?  Nitpicking, I know).

Kal-el is found on earth by Jonathon and Martha Kent, and brought up as their own son.  He ends up growing up knowing he is different, and his schoolmates think of him as a freak.  His father Jonathon (Kevin Costner, in a role perfectly suited for him), advises him to not use his extraordinary powers-powers that he has from his Kryptonian body on earth.  As Kal-el (whom his earth parents name Clark) grows, he finds it increasingly difficult to hide his powers from others, particularly at times when he is bullied, or at times when people around him are in trouble.  As a young man, Clark/Kal-el ends up shuttling around doing odd jobs here and there.  He always ends up having to leave due to some feat of strength he performs, which in turn forces him to hide again.  Eventually, when an alien craft is discovered at the arctic, Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane begins researching this man who has done incredible things, and the trail reaches Clark.  Just as this happens, General Zod arrives at earth to seek his revenge, and the great showdown between Zod and Kal-el begins.

There is a lot about this movie to admire.  The "fish out of water" syndrome (complete with Christ imagery without any nuance) is played very well in this film.  In the end, the human (or Kryptonian) element is the movie's strongest point.  The film does a wonderful job of depicting how difficult it would be to be in the situation Clark is in, but it also shows how hard it would be for others as well (his parents, his classmates, etc.).  The movie also plays some great new angles on the mythology that I hadn't seen before, particularly involving the interaction between Clark and Lois Lane.  The performances of all the actors are great.  Henry Cavill brings a great inner strength and sensitivity to Kal-el.  Amy Adams proves here that she can make even the most canned dialogue sound great.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are both note perfect as Superman's adoptive parents.  The other bit roles are also well played, though I could have used some more humor in the dialogue for Laurence Fishburne's Perry White (Fishburne is great, but his dialogue needed to lighten his character up a bit).  Russell Crowe brings a healthy dose of gravitas to Jor-el.

I had two problems with the movie.  I felt that Michael Shannon's performance as General Zod was fine, but that the character itself lacked the kind of depth we saw in the Terence Stamp version, or the depth we found in Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.  The villain in comic book movies is key, and here, I felt more of a caricature than a real substance in the Zod character.  The second problem I had was that after a very strong first 2/3 of the movie, most of the last 1/3 is tedious fighting.  A lot of punches are thrown, and while watching the two Kryptonians hurtle through corn fields looked impressive, the fighting went on too long and got boring to me.  I think that the way the film ended sets the franchise up very well, and I hope that this movie does well enough to be able to build on the strengths of this movie and leave behind some of the tedium.

All in all, this movie could be a great restart to this franchise after the tedious and boring "Superman Returns" of 2006.  What I hope is that the makers of the sequel build on the characters more and use elaborate visual effects to bolster characters and story.  This movie has a lot to chew on, and the viewer can tell that Christopher Nolan's (the director of all three masterful Batman movies of the last 10 years) fingerprints are on this movie.  But, the substance and grappling he brought to the Dark Knight films outshone what happens in this movie.  Here's hoping that this movie is only the beginning of great things.  But even if it isn't, get ready for a good time at the movies!

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I mentioned this in a recent post (so forgive the repetition if you read that but) but the last time I saw a JJ Abrams "Star Trek" movie for the first time, I had my dad sitting next to me.  So, as the theater dimmed earlier today, I looked to my right to see an empty chair, and remembered dad.  Little did I know that many of the images I would see over the next 2 hours would do even more to remind me of my dad and some of the movie memories I shared with him.  This movie (especially its second half) is jammed with wonderful homages to the original Star Trek series, but everything is written well enough that it would take nothing away from the enjoyment of the movie if the viewer knows nothing about Star Trek.  JJ Abrams and company are doing wonderful things with this franchise, and since they are not bound by the canon of the original series (due to sci-fi reasons :) ), the possibilities of what they can do with this series are endless.  To watch this movie was a wonderful flashback to my childhood, but also a totally original experience.  I will attempt to be free from spoilers, but I will say, there is a lot to spoil, so read with caution.

The movie begins with events that end up leaving Kirk without the command of the Enterprise.  This event coincides with a bombing of a Starfleet archive in London.  The man who ends up being behind the bombing is John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch).  The bombing prompts Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to call a special session with all of the Captains and First Officers of the fleet present.  Harrison, assuming this meeting would take place, then attacks that meeting, and kills Kirk's mentor.  Kirk is then reinstated as Captain of the Enterprise, and Spock is reinstated as First Officer.  Harrison had escaped after his attack to a far off planet, and Kirk is given the task to hunt down and kill Harrison by Admiral Marcus.  Things take a surprising turn, however, when Kirk captures Harrison rather than killing him, and the story really takes off from there.

JJ Abrams is this generation's Steven Spielberg.  He is making movies that are at once entertaining, engaging, and have mass appeal.  Taking a franchise like Star Trek (which has a large appeal, but a more selective one) and giving it a mass appeal is a tough thing to do, but Abrams has done it with his two "Trek" films.  Since Abrams is now directing the next "Star Wars" movie, he may not be directing more "Trek" films, but the franchise will be the poorer for it.  I can only imagine that the upcoming "Star Wars" sequels have great potential, given the quality of these "Star Trek" films.  Here, he is able to rely on the inherent strengths of the "Star Trek" franchise.  The characters created by Gene Roddenberry almost 50 years ago have always been the strength of this series.  Taking those characters and giving them a good story made for the best of what "Star Trek" has had to offer.  Here, the characters are given a great villain, but also a great story, filled with action that never lets up, and homages to the original series which give the movie great texture.  One of the strengths that Abrams and company bring this new version is how much substance they give to all of the Trek characters.  While Kirk and Spock will always be the central characters of this mythology, Chekhov, Sulu, Scotty, McCoy and Uhura are all given important roles to pay in this epic, and the story is so much stronger because of it.  The other thing which made for some of the best Trek movies and episodes was the villains it gave us.  Here, the villain known initially as John Harrison evokes some of the best villains Trek has ever had to offer.  He is a character of substance, not simply evil incarnate.  He has motivation for what is is doing, in spite of the fact that what he is doing is horribly destructive.

The ending moments of the movie were wonderful in their evocative nature.  The writers of the movie truly did their homework and knew some things that would satisfy Trek fans without bogging the story down in Star Trek minutiae.  They give us familiar images, but in a new context, and the familiarity is what brings us back to these movies.  We all love familiar things, and what Abrams and company have done so masterfully here is gives us something both new and familiar.  This is great mass market movie making, and it makes me very excited to see what Abrams has in store for all of us with the next "Star Wars" movie.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Star Trek (2009)

Today, the sequel to this popular reboot of the "Star Trek" franchise is released in the theaters.  I can't wait to get out and see it.  This week, I decided to watch this 2009 movie again, and really recapture the spirit just in time for the release of the new Star Trek film.  Earlier this week, I recalled here a great moment I had with my dad when I first saw this movie.  Watching it again this week, I thought a lot of him, but I also remembered just how good this movie is.  It is a bold, inventive piece of work that tries to have its cake and eat it too, and pretty much succeeds.

What is meant by the cake remark?  The movie wants to be able to give us many of the same characters and situations that made Star Trek fans love the franchise, but it needs to change it enough so that the films are not simply a retread.  In order to do that, a time travel plot is given to us that gives everyone in the Star Trek universe a brand new destiny.  While the logic of the plot may be a bit suspect (leading the viewer to have to suspend at least some disbelief), it works tremendously well in giving fans familiarity, but keeping it general enough the people who aren't big Star Trek fans can follow the action as well.  One of the many things that works very well is the time travel variable scene itself.  As James T. Kirk's father George is the First Officer of the USS Kelvin, a Romulan renegade named Nero bursts onto the scene out of nowhere and completely changes everyone's destiny in the Star Trek universe.   The main thing that affects Kirk's destiny is that his father dies while he is being born, while in the original Star Trek universe, Kirk grew up with his father.  While everything ends up changing due to these events, the writers of the movie still are able to present characters and situations that are familiar to Trek devotees.  One such event that hearkened back to the original cast that is executed very well is Kirk's taking the "no win scenario" during his days at the academy.  This event was originally discussed in "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan".  It involves a test wherein Starfleet cadets are put in a situation wherein the captain in the simulation is put in a sure death situation and then shows how he will react.  Kirk is taking the test for the third time, but he has reprogrammed the test in order to beat the "no win scenario".  The scene is hilarious in how smug and arrogant Kirk is, and it is one event that happens in both "Trek" worlds, showing a certain constancy to Kirk's bravado, even though so much has changed from the original Trek universe.

While watching this time, it became clear that fans of movies have two things about which to be excited.  First, the new film "Star Trek: Into Darkness" looks to be good, and it has gotten great reviews.  But second, for fans of the "Star Wars" films, it should be remembered the JJ Abrams (the director of both new Trek movies) will be directing the next Star Wars movie.  If he handles the Star Wars franchise as capably as he handled the Trek series, fans have so much to anticipate.  Here, Abrams is able to find the right balance of reverence for the characters with the necessity of giving a fresh vision.  Also, bringing Leornard Nimoy into the movie proves to be a stamp of approval from the original series.  His presence lends a certain Trek gravitas which takes a capable story and launches it into outer space, metaphorically speaking.  Scene after scene is infused with life and creativity.  The slight cockeyed angle of the camera throughout the movie gives lends an element of realism to the vision.  The performances in the movie are also noteworthy.  The cast faced the same daunting task as the writers and director here.  They had to pay tribute to the characters they did not create, but still be able to bring something fresh to each character.  Chris Pine's James T. Kirk has some wonderful homages to William Shatner (witness the scene at the end when he pats Dr. McCoy and the shoulder and proclaims, "Bones, buckle up!"), but is still a different Kirk.  Anton Yelchin's Chekhov is the right blend of substantial character and cheesy caricature it was originally meant to be from the 60's series.  Zachary Qunito's Spock is note perfect, especially as this incarnation of the series' best character adds brand new nuances to the character.  Zoe Saldana's Uhura might be the most important new incarnation in this film.  In the old series, Uhura was important, but sometimes seemed like little more than an intergalactic telephone operator.  Here, the character is given some real substance, and the movie is so much more deep because of that.

The other characters are similarly substantial, which brings us to the ultimate strength of this new version of Trek.  The movie we are watching (though we know it to be a fantasy), is infused with truth and realism.  This kind of storytelling has been on display in movies lately, especially in Christoper Nolan's "Batman" trilogy.  We are seeing a trend of fantasy films which stay within a fantasy world, but are able to seem real, and so the movies touch us in ways other fantasy films don't.  In this movie, the opening minutes never fail to create emotion because they are true to life, even though they are set in outer space.  I am a big fan of all kinds of movies.  Art house movies and indie movies are always interesting for me.  But people like JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan seem to be bringing some real substance to the mulitplex as well, and I am excited to see what is going to come of it next.


Monday, May 13, 2013

Another Dad Movie Memory

As the next Star Trek movie is almost ready to be released in the theaters, I keep thinking up the time I saw JJ Abrams' first installment of his "Star Trek" reboot back in 2009.  My parents were set to come out and visit us in Minnesota that May, and I thought it would be a great idea to wait to see the movie until dad was out on his trip.  We went down to the Mall of America.  I loved the movie, and it was fun to see the movie with him, since I had grown up watching "Star Trek" many nights at the dinner table at our home in Southern California.  The main thing I remember about that day was that when the movie ended, my dad burst into applause all by himself in the movie theater.  The theater wasn't that full as I recall, so his applause was pretty much the only applause in the room.  Needless to say, he liked the movie a lot too.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Stand By Me

Here's a movie that I have heard about for most of my life, and until recently, I had never seen it.  It's one of those movies that seems to mean something to a lot of people as well, so it was good to finally experience it.  The movie was directed by Rob Reiner, who was on a creative tear in the 80's. He directed a string of films that are classics ("Spinal Tap", "Sure Thing", "When Harry Met Sally"), and this one falls right into that era.  The movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, and it follows four boys on an extraordinary journey.

The movie is mostly a flashback.  A grown man named Gordie (Richard Dreyfuss) sees a note in the paper concerning the death of Chris, a man with whom he had grown up.  Upon seeing the headline, Gordie immediately begins to recollect the events of the summer of 1959.  Gordie (Wil Wheaton) and his three friends Teddy, Vern and Chris (Corey Feldman, Jerry O' Connell and River Phoenix) are all enjoying their summer and the freedom it brings.  Vern hears his older brother and a friend discussing the death of a local young boy and the whereabouts of the boy's body.  The boys come up with a plan to find the body so they can become local heroes.  They end up in a race to the body with Vern's older brother, who is joined by the local small time thug Ace (Keifer Sutherland).  Along the way, the boys all have significant discussions about their hope and fears.

The plot of this movie is really secondary to the feelings it evokes.  Sometimes, a movie's story is not nearly as important to its success as the tone that the film has.  Here, there is tremendous authenticity to the portrayal of the four boys.  Each of them have their own baggage, but all of that is portrayed in a way that is consistent with how boys would speak about such things.  Gordie has just lost his older brother, and it seems as though his parents, in their grief, have shut him out.  Chris comes from a difficult family, and it seems that he is destined for a life of hooliganism.  Vern is awkward and pudgy, and he has a hard time avoiding being picked on.  Finally, Teddy is a kid who has been abused at home by an unstable father.  Lesser movies with these themes may descend to "after school special" jargon.  This movie is able to portray these difficult adult oriented themes while still making the dialogue of the boys believable.  In a small role, Jon Cusack plays Gordie's older brother (in scenes that take place before his death).  He brings a special element of tenderness to the film, as he seems to have been a perfect older brother to Gordie, and the viewer feels even more grief for Gordie as we see whom he has lost.

After seeing this movie, it was good, but not quite the classic I was expecting.  I was very impressed by the ability of Rob Reiner to direct the young actors so well.  Also, the ability to bring great drama to everyday small town life was accomplished very well.  My hunch regarding this movie's classic status is that it brought together several young actors at once who all went on to do work as older actors.  Hence, this movie is a sort of time capsule for all of these young talented actors.  It is particularly poignant to see River Phoenix in his role, since he ended up dying so young.  He and the other young actors bring a depth to their characters that is rare.  I can see myself sitting down with my boys when they are 13 or so and watching this movie, almost as a way to introduce them to certain elements of becoming a young man. 

Friday, May 10, 2013

Movie Quote Contest answers

Thanks for all who participated!!!  I got 11 entries, and I know many more of  you peaked in and gave it a try!  Thanks a lot.  I want to do more of these, because people respond really well, and more people check into my little blog world.  The winner this month was my old buddy Josh from High School youth group days...he got 16 points on the quiz.  He guessed several of the quotes correctly and the actors who spoke them, plus he guessed what all the quotes have in common...I had a couple other people guess the connection as well.

Here are the answers:

CONNECTION:  All of these movies are set in or around the city of Chicago.

1.  "Say it ain't so Joe"- "Eight Men Out"

2.  "Do you have a kiss for Daddy?"-Matthew Broderick, "Ferrie Bueller's Day Off."

3.  "I didn't kill my wife!"-Harrison Ford, "The Fugitive"

4.  "Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable, or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"-John Cusack, "High Fidelity"

5.  "I'll have a drink."-Kevin Costner, "The Untouchables"

6.  "Could you describe the ruckus?"-Anthony Michael Hall, "The Breakfast Club"

7.  "We're on a mission from God."-Dan Akroyd and John Belushi, "The Blues Brothers"

8.  "I like the mass better in Latin.  It's nicer when you don't know what they're saying."  Glynis Johns, "While You Were Sleeping"

9.  "4 Jacks...you owe me 15 grand pal"-Paul Newman, "The Sting"

10.  "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"-"Planes, Trains and Automobiles"











Thanks for playing!


Friday, May 3, 2013

Return of the Movie Quote Contest

I haven't done one of these in awhile...so here goes.  I have ten quotes below.  They all have a common connection.  The title of each movie is worth 1 point, and the actor (s) or actress who spoke the line is worth one point (in this case, quotes 1 and 10 are spoken by bit actors, so those are only worth one point, since I don't know that names of the actors who spoke the lines, while number 7 is spoken by two different actors, so that question can be worth 3 points total).  If you guess the connection between all of the quotes, I will make that worth 5 points.  Here are the rules:

-You have to get your answers to me via email (losbascoms@me.com) or private Facebook message.  If you put your answers in the comment section, others can see them and I will delete them.  I will take answers until Friday, May 10 at 9PM Minneapolis time.
-NO GOOGLING OT LOOKING UP ANSWERS...this is meant to test your brain without help :)
-The winner will get a $10 Trader Joe's gift card.

GOOD LUCK

1.  "Say it ain't so Joe"

2.  "Do you have a kiss for Daddy?"

3.  "I didn't kill my wife!"

4.  "Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable, or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

5.  "I'll have a drink."

6.  "Could you describe the ruckus?"

7.  "We're on a mission from God."

8.  "I like the mass better in Latin.  It's nicer when you don't know what they're saying."

9.  "4 Jacks...you owe me 15 grand pal"

10.  "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"


Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The Master

As I watched the enigmatic last images of this movie, I realized something.  Much like life, this movie was a journey.  The movie didn't seem to be trying to advance any point of view, but simply allowing the viewer (s) to live with the characters in the movie for 2+ hours.  Their journey doesn't come to a tidy conclusion.  Their journey has not reached any specific destination.  We only know that the two principle characters have affected each other deeply, even though the principle character has made little, if any, progress.  (SPECIAL NOTE: this movie earns its R-rating...be warned that if you see this movie, there are several scenes involving nudity and sexuality---and the language is pretty rough too)

Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a young man who has just returned from fighting on the Pacific front in World War 2.  He is a slave to impulse, especially in desires for sex and alcohol.  The opening images of the film show the extent to which he will he go for sexual release, and at other points in the movie, his addiction for alcohol is revealed to be so deep that he uses paint thinner in a cocktail.  One night, in a drunken stupor, he finds himself stumbling onto a yacht in San Francisco Harbor.  On the boat is a group of people led by a man named Lancaster Dodd, who presides over a group of people dedicated to "The Cause."  Freddie ends up in the bowels of the ship with Lancaster (whose name we do not even know until much of the film is over), and Lancaster subjects him to a lengthy interrogation.  Why he asks the questions he does is not clear.  The one thing that is clear is that Dodd believes in some kind of ability of humans to heal past hurts, free themselves from addictions, and attain some kind of perfection that all humans have lost. 

"The Cause" has gained quite a following, as Dodd is able to count on the good will and hospitality of people from homes as varied as San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.  As Freddie continues in the cause, his loyalty to Dodd becomes fierce enough that he becomes willing to resort to violence toward those who question him.  He also is willing to endure bizarre physical challenges from Dodd simply because he is asked to do so.  Rifts inevitably develop between the two men, and the whole time, Dodd's wife Peggy (Amy Adams) presides over their relationship with suspicion.

This movie could have been "about" a lot of things.  It could have been a critique of self help religion (the history of Scientology did help inspire the film, according to director Paul Thomas Anderson).  It could have also delved more deeply into life's meaning as it examines the obvious questions that are brought up with the subject matter.  Instead, it seems to me that the movie is most concerned with personal dynamics.  The two main characters and the people they affect give us a fascinating story.  Add to that some of the supporting roles, and the dynamics become even more interesting.  For instance, though "The Master" is the character of Dodd, I couldn't hep but think as I watched the film that the film's title could just as easily be talking about Dodd's wife.  While the ideas, gift of gab, and glory all belong to Lancaster, Peggy seems to quietly preside over it all, telling Lancaster when he has gone too far, and demanding certain things from him that no one else could.

Therefore, the movie is not really "about" anything, in my final analysis.  It seems more observational, much like an episode of "Seinfeld".  It's almost as if Anderson wanted to simply make a movie about interesting people, and let the audience observe them.  Of course, by doing that, it is actually about a lot of different things!  I suppose this is the paradox of the movie.  It doesn't take much of a position on what it depicts, and in so doing, it gives the viewer many issues to ponder.  For me, the ultimate issue that I pondered was the human being's search for belonging and meaning.  Where do we go for these things?  Anderson shows Freddie going to several places for this, but in the end, it all seems somewhat vain.  In the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, a phrase appears: "Nothing is new under the sun".  As Freddie tries to find meaning everywhere (except in God, who never really factors into this story), he is left somewhat empty handed.  The principles of Ecclesiastes come across in this film, whether Paul Thomas Anderson intended them to or not. 

In the end, despite its intensity and grim nature at times, this movie is something I found exhilarating.  The writing and creativity of Anderson is an amazing thing to behold.  As I listened to the dialogue, at times I found myself in awe of the creativity and the precision of the vision and the dialogue in the movie.  This filmmaker has received many accolades (he has not won an Oscar yet), and his work is definitely noteworthy.  It may not always be palatable, and it sometimes is polarizing.  However, it is always interesting, and this is in that vein.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

42

I never do this...but when I saw "42", it seemed appropriate.  The Dodgers were playing a day game in New York (of all places) during the movie, so I left my phone on silence, and I checked in on their progress while I was watching the story of Jackie Robinson unfold.  As the film ended with the end of Robinson's rookie season, I looked down at my phone, and the Dodgers had just defeated the Mets.  Watching this movie about the most significant Dodger ever made me want to check in with my team while I was watching the movie.  It occurred to me that even though Jackie Robinson will always be remembered for the remarkable contributions he made to humanity, it might be forgotten that had he not played the game of baseball very well, he would not have made the progress that he made.  So, in that light, it seemed in the spirit of the film to check in on the Boys in Blue as I watched the drama unfold on the movie screen (there were 5 people in the theater, so I didn't shine a light on anyone, in case anyone wondered).

This is a story that begs to be told on the movie screen.   It involves great human drama, an underdog story, and a love story.  It follows the pursuit of not one, but two men, and how they accomplished that shared goal together.  It also follows the journey of a remarkable couple, whose love for each other made the success of the pursuit possible.  The young actor cast to play Robinson is Chadwick Boseman.  He is well suited to the role.  He brings Jackie Robinson to all of us, as we see before us how this man was able to help integrate America's game.  Jackie Robinson was no pacifist.  One of the reasons he was chosen by the Dodgers' owner was that he had stood up to racism in the past (Robinson had been court marshaled during WW2 because he refused to follow segregation rules on a military bus).  Boseman is able to show the simmering anger that Robinson felt, but also his commitment to controlling his temper.  As the Dodgers' owner, Harrison Ford inhabits Branch Rickey very well.  If the viewer thinks he is hamming it up in the role, watch old film footage of Branch Rickey.  You will see that Ford's portrayal is note perfect, and it would be good to see Mr. Ford recognized for his work next Oscar season, an honor that has alluded him so far in his long acting career.  The other essential partnership which made this story possible is the love story between Jackie and his wife Rachel.  Rachel Robinson is played by Nicole Beharie, and brings the right balance of tenderness and strength to portray a woman who needed both of those things to support her husband who had to go through a living hell.  The story of these three people is the heart of the movie.

Beyond that, since many of the anecdotes depicted in the movie are well known, the movie was more of a warm, inspirational story told well.  As Robinson makes his way to the big leagues, he is defended in surprising ways.  Perhaps the best scene in that vain is the scene in which Dodger manager Leo Durocher (played very well by Christopher Meloni) confronts the team regarding a petition certain players had circulated stating that they would not play for the Dodgers next to a black man.  Durocher stymies their rebellion, but not before some colorful language is used, and he makes known to the players the Robinson is only the first of many talented players from the Negro Leagues who will enter the Majors, and that they better play well if they like their jobs.

The movie also brings back 40's baseball well.  It brings us into that world, and it aids the story very well.  The spring training facility at the beginning of the film does not look glamorous.  The grass is not well manicured, and it reminds us that baseball was not the big business then that it is now.  Also, the technology of digital effects is used to bring to life old ball parks that have been gone for decades.  Seeing Ebbet's Field, The Polo Grounds, Forbes Field, and other places come to life again was great for this baseball devote. 

However, in spite of all the window dressing, the heart of the movie is the human drama.  We get a glimpse into the close partnership between Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson.  Both of those men gave credit to the other man for the success of their experiment until the day they died.  Harrison Ford plays the role with great gusto, and the scenes of him encouraging Robinson and demanding loyalty from his other employees are some of the movie's best scenes.  The movie also reserves a special place for Wendell Smith (Andre Holland), a journalist for the African American newspaper "The Pittsburgh Courier" who followed Jackie Robinson's rookie year and chronicled it.  And finally, we see the love story between Jackie and Rachel played out before our eyes.  Their need for each other is evident in one scene specifically.  As they stroll through a Florida neighborhood together, they are approached by a man who sees them strolling.  The man is doing some city work on a power line, but wants to speak with them.  As he stops his work to approach the couple, they become concerned.  With the abuse they have already endured, they are understandably defensive as this stranger approaches them.  But, as he reaches them, he makes known to both of them that he is "pulling for him," and that he deserves a shot like everyone else.

I doubt very much that this movie will win any awards next award season.  It is not a groundbreaking masterpiece.  However, I spent more than half of this movie with a lump in my throat.  This is a story I know very well, and the story is brought to the screen with accuracy and dignity.  In the end, that is enough.  Some of the reviews have stated that the movie played it safe.  I cannot totally disagree, but I can say that I have rarely had a more satisfying emotional experience at a movie than I did seeing this movie.  Cinema can be avant garde and cutting edge.  But it can also be the keeper of inspirational stories like this one.  The story tells of people not only motivated by a desire for fairness, but also motivated by a faith in Christ that gives them the strength to overcome barriers.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Lost In Translation

There is a unique feel to this movie.  It manages to have a dreamlike quality, though the characters in the film are hardly living in the kind of dream they would prefer.  This is a movie that is about many things, but as I watched it again some 9 years after first seeing it in the movie theater, I was struck by one theme in particular.  That theme is intimacy.

There is one emotion that both Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johnansson) certainly feel: loneliness.  The film follows these two characters as they each journey through their respective lives of isolation and searching.  Bob Harris is a famous American movie actor who has journeyed to Tokyo to shoot an advertisement for a Japanese whiskey called Santore.  Charlotte is in Tokyo with her photographer husband as he is on a photo shoot  in Tokyo.  The two of them are staying in the same swanky hotel, and they happen upon each other one night at the hotel bar while listening to the hotel bar singer.  Bob is in a mid-life crisis of sorts, as his distance from his wife and kids is not only geographical, but also metaphysical.  Charlotte is feeling increasingly distant from her husband, and while he works on his photo shoots, she listens to self help books and visits Buddhist shrines, trying to discover some meaning for her life.  Their loneliness is exacerbated by the fact that they are foreigners.  Neither of them speak Japanese, so everything around them presents barriers.  In what is possibly the signature scene of the movie, Bob Harris is trying to shoot the whiskey commercial.  After shooting the first take, the director of the commercial gives a lengthy piece of direction to the translator.  The translator in turn relays the message to Harris, and it seems to be much more brief than what the director said to the translator.  Other scenes like this ensue.  Anyone who has been in a country wherein their native language is not the primary language spoken can identify with these scenes.

Having set the stage, the theme of intimacy begins to take center stage.  As Bob and Charlotte meet, they begin to spend time together.  They are clearly at very different stages in their lives, but they also seem to have a lot in common.  The connection that they have is beautifully depicted.  My favorite example of this is a scene at a nightclub wherein the two characters are sitting together, and Charlotte lovingly rests her head on Bob's shoulder.  There is an unspoken connection between these two characters that goes beyond anything physical.  This is most clearly seen near the end of the film.  Bob has a one night stand with the resident lounge singer.  The next morning, Charlotte knocks on his door, hoping to spend another day together.  She is disappointed to find this situation, and the rest of their day together is spent in awkward conversation and tension.  What is the problem?  They have not slept together, or even exchanged more than a head on the shoulder.  However, they have connected in such a deep way that Charlotte does feel betrayal and disappointment.  It is clear that there is chemistry between them, and they are both needy.  So, to Charlotte, Bob's actions are insensitive.

I think that the closing images of this film are among the most evocative I have ever seen.  I will not spoil the ending.  Suffice to say, there is a certain controversy to it, and the mystery of the ending does indeed give the entire film an elusive air.  It is painful to watch how distant both of the main characters are from their respective spouses, and how they deal with that pain together is what the movie is about.  Their individual pain forges an intimacy with each other that goes beyond anything sexual.  It seems that these two have some degree of physical attraction, but whatever exists in that realm is secondary to the spiritual connection the two characters have.  Bill Murray is amazing in this movie, and I wish he would have won the Oscar for it.  He brings a world weary quality to his performance that really is the heart of this film.  In some ways, the truths of the book of Ecclesiastes are on display here, as the weariness of life is on display as well as the simple comfort of human contact.  Sofia Coppola, who wrote and directed this movie, uses all of the elements of film making (photography, soundtrack, dialogue, etc) to create an elusive yet palatable tone to this movie.  The tone on its own makes this movie so watchable.  The characters and them of the movie make it exceptional.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Harrison Ford on Jimmy Kimmel

Funny stuff...gets a little blue at the end, FYI



Argo

This movie is the best kind of conventional entertainment.  It has a good story, good characters, a story that a lot of us know about, and it is executed very well.  So, how did it get to be Best Picture?  Don't get me wrong, this is an extraordinarily crafted piece of work, much like "Lincoln".  If anything, "Lincon" and "Argo" show two directors from different generations who are doing very well crafted entertainment.  Personally, I would say that the last movie Ben Affleck made (2010's "The Town") was a better movie, because I felt that it had a more interesting plot and had more to say about the plight of humanity.  "Argo" is a typical "against all odds" story with a wonderful cast of character actors, and a plot constructed so well that it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.

The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980.  The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran.  Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America.  In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman).  They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood.  Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.

Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated.  There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year.  This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff.  It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993.  That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List".  "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it.  It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past.  For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture.  My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13".  All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy.  Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following.  Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors.  Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be.  To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble.  That was due to its amazing script.  Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.  

For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie.  This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it.  More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting.  In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past.  Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it.  For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture."  I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Stranger Than FIction

Sometimes, I wonder if one of the ways one can tell if one is watching an original movie is if one says to him or herself, "It seems like someone else must have made this movie before...it's such a great idea."  Rack my brain as I might, I cannot think of another movie like this one.  It was released some 7 years ago.  I watched it again this week, and while I see some of its weaknesses, its originality and humor are more clear to me than ever.  It is difficult to write about this movie without revealing essential plot points.  I will not reveal the end, but if you want to be totally surprised by this great story, stop reading here and come back to my entry later :).

Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an IRS agent with a decidedly dull and predictable life.  One day, while he is going about his routine, he starts hearing an audible voice.  While he hears it and the audience of the film hears it, no one else does.  The voice is narrating his life as he lives it.  At first, this is troubling to Harold and annoying, since he cannot make the voice stop.  Then, as the voice reveals a future key turn of events in Harold's life, Harold becomes truly scared.  He begins to seek help, but the therapists he sees merely prescribe medication for schizophrenia.  Harold understands their diagnosis, but feels he is sane and is hearing this voice.  The second therapist he sees suggests to him that he talk to someone who knows about literature, since the voice he is hearing seems to be narrating his life, as though he were living in a book.  He finds a literature professor at a local college (Dustin Hoffman) who begins to help him.  As the story continues, Harold has to figure out what kind of a story he is living, and what he is to do about it.  While Harold's fate unfolds, the author of the story (Emma Thompson) is struggling.  She is a writer of tragedies, and she always kills off her main characters.  However, she has encountered a nasty case of writer's block, and she cannot figure out how to creatively kill of the character of her new story, a man named Harold Crick.  It is her voice that Harold Crick hears narrating her life, and when the professor of literature who is helping Harold discovers who the voice who is narrating his life belongs to, he knows that Harold can only have one fate.  This is troubling to Harold because the narrator's voice and the crisis that it caused in his life has opened Harold up to living his life in a new way.  This includes falling in love with a young lady in town who owns a bakery (Maggie Gyllenhall), and deepening his freiendship with a coworker at the IRS.  Thus, Harold begins a quest to find the author of his life and convince her not to kill him.

For some reason, the words the late Roger Ebert wrote about this movie have stuck with me through the years.  This movie actually asks questions about what duty an artist has to his or her work.  If letting Harold live makes for a less artistic story, what should the artist do?  The movie is very well constructed.  There are some shots near the beginning of a young boy on a bike and of a young lady job searching that seem unrelated to the story, but come to be essential elements of the story.  As I watched the movie again, some of the scenes with the author and the agent from the publisher (played well by Queen Latifah) seem forced and not as natural as the rest of the plot.  However, since theplot revolves around the tension between creature and creator, the author's story is vital.  I simply think that many of the scenes with the two of them seem awkward, and when the story returns to Harold Crick, the soul of the movie is really there.  Also, Dustin Hoffman is absolutely wonderful in this movie.  He creates a character who is so unapologetic in his academic world.  He sees the man in front of him as a character, even though he is a real person.  As such, he is cavalier with Harold, but always in a way that is satirical and true.  Every motion Hoffman makes-every nervous twitch, every cup of coffee-contributes to the character he creates.  Will Ferrell is also a perfect choice for his role.  Ferrell always has had the strength of being "all in" with any role he does, whether in a full length film, or in a short SNL sketch.  Here, his comic abilities serve him well, but he creates a character who is so sympathetic and real that one forgets that this is the same actor who streaked through "Old School." 

In the end, the movie is great because it is original.  It has a new angle on storytelling, and the climactic moments of the movie feel truly different from anything else I have ever seen.  Not only is the movie original, however, it also is a heartfelt piece of work that is poignant and warm.  As the closing scenes flash across the screen at this viewing, I felt touched in the same way I am every time I watch the movie.  It is original indeed, but it also has a big heart, and that's what brings me back to it. 

Friday, April 12, 2013

Jonathan Winters

I have so many memories of movies growing up, but one that made an indelible impression on me was the sight of Jonathan Winters riding a crooked girls bike down the road in "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World".  He was a truly gifted comic who came from left field on almost everything.  I remember one time seeing an episode of the Tonight Show wherein he and Robin Williams were both guests.  It was as uproarious as you would expect, but the image I will always remember from that show is that Jonathan Winters came out to the guest chair wearing a Union Civil War uniform...for no reason.

My family and I love "Mad World", though it has been awhile since I have watched it.  Maybe I will put it in again, and watch Jonathan Winters ride that bike, pummel Phil Silvers, and argue with Dick Shawn in the pit under the big W (or, the "big dubya", as Winters would have put it).

He will be missed.


Thursday, April 11, 2013

In Memory of Roger Ebert

I must say that I would be remiss if I did not at least mention Roger Ebert's death on my blog.  I read him quite regularly my entire adult life, and I remember my mom and dad watching "Gene and Roger" back when I was a child when Siskel and Ebert had a show on PBS.  I disagreed and agreed with his writings, as is the case with any writer's opinion.  At the same time, much of his writings and many of his ideas about movies have stuck with me though the years.  I remember how much I respected his thoughts on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ, even though I was not a big fan of that film.  He understood the point the film was trying to make, and respected it as a work of art, even though he seems to have left behind his Catholic faith (or so it seemed to me in his writings).  I always felt that even though I was just reading his reviews, I was sort of having a conversation with him, and much of his writing ended up sharpening my own ability to observe movies.

He wrote many things that stuck with me, but nothing he ever wrote stuck with me more than this quote, and it has become my philosophy of movie watching as well:

"It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it."

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Friends with Kids

In the interest of full disclosure, this movie would be offensive to many of my more conservative readers.  It is rated R for a reason.  It has lots of bad language, and features a scene of a couple watching an adult film, and in the scene, a couple of shots of what they are watching are shown.  Was it necessary to the movie to show the video clip?  I think not, but since art itself is unnecessary, the greater question has to be does this film work and does it have something to say?  To that question, the answer is an emphatic yes.  This is one of the best romantic comedies I have seen in years.  It seems to owe a lot to Nora Ephron/Rob Reiner's "When Harry Met Sally", but it has its own voice, as so much of the content of the film deals with the realities of what happens when couples who are friends begin having children.  The last scene of the movie can be almost compared frame by frame to the last scene of "When Harry Met Sally", but the dialogue of the scene in this film is much rougher, and I think that it captures something about where we have journeyed sexually as a culture since 1989, the year that "When Harry Met Sally" was released. 

Julie and Jason (Jennifer Westfeldt and Adam Scott) are best friends.  They have a platonic relationship which has lasted for almost 20 years.  They are friends with two other couples, Ben and Missy (Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig) and Alex and Leslie (Chris O'Dowd and Maya Rudolph).  At the beginning of the movie, the six of them are out to dinner in their Manhattan habitat, and they all see a family across the restaurant with squirmy kids.  As a couple of them loudly protest the presence of the children in the restaurant, Alex and Leslie sheepishly break the news to all at the table that they are expecting a child.  The film quickly flashes forward 4 years to show the lives of these 6 after children have entered the picture.  Now, not only do Alex and Leslie have kids, but so do Ben and Missy.  As Julie and Jason make their way all the way out to Brooklyn for a birthday party for Alex ($45 cab fare), we see a new reality.  Alex and Leslie are at each other's throats about sharing the load of parenting, while Ben and Missy are downright hostile toward each other.  Julie and Jason like kids and want to have them themselves, but they do not want the future that they see before them.  So they concoct a plan to conceive a child together, then raise the child while maintaining their separate lives. 

Since this is a romantic comedy, there is a certain predictability to the ending, but it says something about the quality of this movie that I wasn't sure exactly how this movie would end.  However, it stays true to form while making some true statements along the way.  The strongest piece of writing to me was the way Jennifer Westfeldt (who wrote, produced and directed this movie on top of starring in it) contrasts the marriages of Julie and Jason's best friends.  While Alex and Leslie's marriage encounters challenges, it is clear that they love each other, and that foundation allows them to see the worst in the partner and still stay together.  Meanwhile, the picture of Ben and Missy is one where the fireworks of their relationship do not last because they don't actually like each other that much.  Once things get difficult, they are at each other's throats.  These two pictures give Julie and Jason something with which they can grapple, as they become parents and have to deal with the complex consequences of how they chose to become parents.

In the end, the movie rises above being a run of the mill romantic comedy because it has a lot of things to say about relationships and how children change everything.     Jason especially has some big things to learn, and sometimes what needs to be learned is that your best friend can also be your life long partner.  As I watched this movie with my life long partner, I saw a lot of truth.  It is amazing where you can find profound truth sometimes.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

My Fair Lady

This is a classic movie musical that I discovered many years ago.  And since the first time I watched this movie involves my late father, it takes on even more interesting dimensions.  Some years back, I watched this movie for the first time with my girlfriend Stephanie.  I was still living with my parents at the time, so Stephanie and I sat on my bedroom floor, put "My Fair Lady" on, and sat and watched.  As the movie progresses, Henry Higgins' heart begins to soften toward the rough around the edges Eliza Doolittle.  During one of the moments in which this was becoming clear, my dad told me that he walked by my room.  As he watched his grown son sitting next to his girlfriend, he thought it slightly funny and appropriate that we were watching a movie together about a man who was letting someone in to his solitary world.  He couldn't help but find it appropriate, and also a little poignant.  Up to that point, I had never had a girlfriend, had been independent and happy, until this new person came into my life and changed everything.  Dad loved Stephanie and always thought she was perfect for me.  I can't see this movie without thinking of that first time I watched it with my girlfriend Steph.

The film is full of memorable tunes as well as biting and cynical humor.  Linguist Henry Higgins is a confirmed bachelor, and he sees any involvement with women as utterly repugnant.  At a performance one night in Covent Garden, he happens upon fellow linguist Colonel Pickering, and they discover street urchin Eliza Doolittle.   Higgins wagers Pickering that within a matter of weeks, he could transform this street urchin into a refined lady, one who he could even pass off as a high society lady at a ball.  As Pickering takes the bet, Higgins is forced to prove himself.  All the while, Eliza's freeloading and oafish (but all the while clever) father Alfie finds ways to take advantage of Higgins' wealth.

The film gives us many unique moments.  Perhaps the most unique aspect of the film is the style Rex Harrison used to "sing" his numbers.  If there were some sort of category for turn of century British rap, Harrison's performance may fit that category.  His "singing" is unique, and it bolsters his characters' curmudgeonly nature.  Audrey Hepburn's Eliza Doolittle is not her greatest role, but she makes her character sympathetic and lovable.  Above it all hovers the wonderful melodies of this musical.  "The Street Where You Live" somehow manages to be an extremely evocative piece of music, even though the song has an absurd premise.  Other wonderful melodies and witty barbs follow throughout the film.  But, in the end, the admittance by Higgins that he has "Grown Accustomed to Her (Eliza's) Face" is the heart of the movie.  Men do love companionship, no matter what they say.

So as I reflect anew on my first viewing of this classic, I am brought again back to my dad and one of the many good memories of him.  After more than 13  years of marriage to Steph, I have more than merely grown accustomed to her.  Instead, I love every moment I have with her.  And even though I never got a chance to ask dad this for sure, I have a feeling that when he glimpsed Steph and I watching this movie together, he knew that I had found someone perfect for me.  I had moved on from being independent into a different realm. 

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Dr. No

I finally did it...I finally watched a Sean Connery James Bond movie.  This is only my third James Bond movie.  This is part of my father's legacy, as he didn't like James Bond, and therefore I grew up not having anything to do with Bond.  He never forbade it, but since he had no interest in the films, I just never saw any of them.  The first Bond film I watched was "Goldeneye" with Pierce Brosnan.  I was in my 20's at that point, so I had waited quite awhile before my first Bond film.  In that case, I couldn't understand the Bond fuss, though I had heard that the Brosnan Bond movies weren't the best ones.  Fast forward to recently, when I watched "Casino Royale", and I actually reviewed it here on this blog.  Click the movie title to go to that review if you wish.  I was impressed by that movie, yet the two Bond actors who star in the most films (Sean Connery and Roger Moore) had still alluded me.  So, last week, not only did I finally watch a Sean Connery Bond film, but the original one.  "Dr. No" was the first James Bond film, and one can see many of the elements of the mythology coming together this early.  I went into this movie expecting it to be a corny, cheesy no brain movie.  Instead, I was actually pretty impressed with it, and I had a better idea as to why this film franchise can work pretty well.  I say "can" work pretty well because even friends of mine who are Bond movie fans will readily admit that the quality of these movies varies a lot.

When I watched this movie, I saw an engaging spy caper.  While Bond does cast off women with frightening ease, I still found a lot more substance to his character then I suspected I would.  I have also always heard that one of the benchmarks of the best Bond films is the quality of the villain.  While I have little to compare this villain to (the villain in "Casino Royale" was great), the villain Dr. No is great.  The best decision the director made in this movie was to keep the villain off the screen for most of the film.  There is one scene when all the viewer experiences is the menacing sound of his voice, as Dr. No deals with a subordinate who has not done his job properly.

In the center of it all, the essence of cool, is Sean Connery.  One can see very easily why this film launched a franchise.  His character is both macho but also vulnerable in his own way.  I always thought that when I finally arrived at a Connery Bond film that he would be impervious to emotion and threats to his physical well being.  Instead, we see a multi dimensional character here.  As other Bond films follow, we come to learn why James Bond cannot afford to attach himself to any life or any woman.  His job is so high risk that attachments are an impossibility.  Of course this leads to a litany of buxom women which can't resist the man, but I digress.

The plot is somewhat standard.  Dr. No is trying to dominate the world, and Bond is trying to stop him.  Along the way, Bond has several people helping him, and some people who turn on him.  This is all standard plot stuff, but it is done effectively and attractively.  More than anything, I think what I appreciated about this movie was that it represents the Bond mythology at a high point.  As I delve more into the Bond films, I'm sure I will be shown even more clearly why this one is so good.  In any case, this was a good movie, and to see Sean Connery in this role that made him famous felt like a small rite of passage in my movie viewing life. 

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Best Actor?

My obsessive fair-mindedness keeps me from being too critical of the Oscar winners, since I have not seen all of the movies which were nominated for Best Picture.  Also, I did not see all the performances which were nominated in the acting categories.  Of the 9 nominated films this year, I have only seen 3: "Lincoln", "Les Miserables" and "Zero Dark Thirty."  The other 6 films will be on my Netflix queue, and I look forward to seeing all of them.

There was one oversight, however, about which I have an opinion, and I have shared it with my wife constantly since Sunday night.  My vote for best actor would have gone to Hugh Jackman over Daniel Day Lewis in a heart beat.  I say this for two main reasons.  First, since we all know that there is no objective measurement of acting greatness, the Oscar sometimes becomes symbolic, or a way to honor certain kinds of work.  In that light, since Daniel Day Lewis has already won two Oscars for best actor, the academy passed up an opportunity to honor a special kind of performance.  They missed this opportunity when they gave Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his fine work in "Lincoln."  Now, I have not seen the other 3 performances that were nominated.  Bradley Cooper, Joaquin Phoenix and Denzel Washington are all fine actors, and I am sure that their work was worthy of an award as well.  However, my question to Academy voters would be this...why does Daniel Day Lewis automatically win this award?  He has now won an Oscar for his last two performances...should we simply assume that he will win each time he makes a film, or did the cool beard and stove pipe hat hypnotize the voters into such a trance that an unprecedented third best Oscar simply was the only choice?

Second, it is my contention that Hugh Jackman's work deserved the award because his was the harder performance, and it was more uniquely suited to him.  Another way to put it would be this: Hugh Jackman could have played Lincoln, but Daniel Day Lewis could not have played Jean Valjean.  The unique achievement of Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"should not have been overlooked as it was.  Daniel Day Lewis' work was outstanding, but it was not unique.  Many actors have been enveloped by an historic figure.  This has required them to change their appearance, voice, and "become" that figure.  To be fair, there is no question that when I saw "Lincoln", I felt that I was watching Abraham Lincoln.  Day Lewis' true gift in the role was somehow to take what I would have imagined Lincoln to be like and somehow capture that on screen.  This is great work.  But Hugh Jackman not only does the same thing with his role, but his entire role is sung!  I once heard a writer say that one can never compare Babe Ruth to anyone else in baseball history because he was not only one of the greatest hitters of all time, but also one of the all time great pitchers.  As such, his talents are unique in baseball history.  In the best actor category this year, there is simply no comparison to the work that Hugh Jackman did.  Not only did he sing his entire role, but he sang it all live.  None of the performances seen on screen (save one) were prerecorded, and every moment of the performance feels fresh and as if Jackman had never spoken the words before.

Sometimes one gets the feeling that the voters have already made up their mind, based either on preconceived notions of greatness or on the desire to hear certain someone's acceptance speech.  It was a lapse in judgement on the academy's part to overlook a performance this year that was not only great, but also completely unique in the history of movie making.  "Les Miserables" as a whole was a unique experiment in movie making, and I don't think it got the accolades it deserved.  Maybe once I see the other 6 movies on the Best Picture list, I will feel differently.  However, even if I feel differently about the film as a whole, Jackman's performance outshone Daniel Day Lewis, and I was disappointed to not see that reflected on Oscar night.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Mao's Last Dancer

This is a movie in which the elements of the story that it tells are its greatest strength.  The story itself is somewhat standard, but the context of the story gives the story tremendous drama.  Even though it is a classic "against all odds kind of story", there is a lot more to this movie.  This movie's setting is what gives it power.

Chi Cao is a young boy who lives in a rural part of China.  During his boyhood, he is picked by government officials to be taken to Beijing and be trained in the discipline of ballet.  His mother and father, given no choice in the matter, watch him go, not knowing when they might see him again.  As a young man, he has become a fine dancer, due to his tenacity and drive.  He is noticed by an English ballet director who is working in Houston.  Chi is allowed to go to America to pursue dance.  While he is in America, things get complicated, in spite of the government agents warning warning him of the dangers in the American influence.

Again, what makes the film work is the context.  The cultural clashes faced by Chi Cao are what makes the movie effective.  We all know of the differences between Capitalism and Communism, but to see them depicted before us on the screen does make a difference.  As Chi Cao has before him the choice to pursue his own happiness, he is forced to contemplate that principle next to the principle that his worth is to be found in the collective of China.  This is a classic conflict of individual versus community, and it plays out very well on the screen.  Some of the most effective moments of the film depict the emotional turmoil for Chi Cao as he is forced to decide between the country and culture of his youth and this new culture in which he is honeymooning.  In one scene, Chi Cao watches in amazement as a man with whom he is socializing openly expresses how much he hates the president.  Chi Cao expresses fear for his acquaintance, since he has had the audacity to criticize a member of government.

The movie's weakness to me resided in the fact that some of the communist officials  came off as a bit of a caricature.  Granted, I have never lived in a communist country, so the depictions may be right on.  It just seemed as though the depictions were a bit broad.  As such, the story is somewhat black and white, while I suspect the reality is more gray.  At the same time, the basic freedoms I take for granted are indeed wonderful to have.  But again, my assumption is that personal liberty is the be all end all, rather than the collective good.  This movie depicts this struggle quite well.  Though it is made by westerners, I feel that it shows a certain context to the Chinese way of life that is somewhat sympathetic.  The film's emotional climax is made all the more real due to the world that the film depicts.

The performances in the movie are all great.  Bruce Beresford, the film's director, has quietly presided over several fine films ("Tender Mercies", "Driving Miss Daisy", "Evelyn").  These films all do a wonderful job of capturing small human drama.  They are not epics, but they are able to find a lot of grand meaning in small events.  The events in life for one or two people can show us something about all of us.  This movie does that very well, as the longings of one man (for freedom, love and family) are shown on the screen.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Groundhog Day Theology

I had quite a few hits on my article about Groundhog Day.  A friend of mine from church shared this article about the movie with me...it's quite good.


http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-03-012-v

Friday, February 1, 2013

Groundhog Day

It's almost February 2, and as I sit in my study on a subzero Minnesota winter day, the length of winter does seem to be a source of great concern for me.  This movie came to mind today.  As I thought about it, I couldn't help but reflect on something I once heard Bill Murray say in an interview.  One of the interesting things about Bill Murray (and there are many interesting things about him), is that he has a background in improvisation.  He spent some of his early years in Chicago's Second City Comedy Club, a club that is all about improvisation.  With that in mind, his statement about "Groundhog Day" is all the more interesting.  He stated in this interview that almost every movie he has ever done has involved a lot of improv on his part.  He sees the script as a starting point, and a lot of the work he does goes beyond what is written.  He went on to say that one of the only times that he didn't even touch the script was for "Groundhog Day", a movie that he thought was written so well that it needed no amendments.  This movie is startlingly well executed.  It is very funny, but it also is actually quite profound as well.  It is a perfect example of how the Academy does not value comedy.  This movie is not just a comedy classic, but a classic.

Phil Connors (Murray) is a Pittsburgh weatherman who is on his way to Punxatawny, PA for the annual Groundhog Day festival.  Accompanying him is his producer Rita (Andie McDowell) and Larry (a wonderfully smarmy Chris Elliot).  Phil is a prima donna.  He hates doing this annual festival.  He feels that he is above everyone in the town, and he certainly feels that he is above doing this stupid groundhog day festival again.  He phones in his story and can't wait to get back home.   Unfortunately, a snow storm keeps his and his crew from going back to Pittsburgh.  He returns to his bed and breakfast for another night, wanting desperately to get back to his home in the big city.

The next morning, Phil wakes up and realizes he is living the same February 2 again.  This troubles him obviously weird for Phil, as he seems to be living the same day he just finished, but everyone else seems oblivious to that fact.  Day after day, Phil wakes up in the same place, on the same day.  The audience is the only "person" who also knows of Phil's predicament, and it is fascinating to watch the different stages he lives through.  He goes through a sage of debauchery.  He goes through a stage of depression.  He goes through a wild stage.  He goes through a suicidal stage.  His reaction to his situation ends up running the gamut of human emotion.  Along the way, his reactions are at times hilarious.  He begins to use his sudden immortality to hit on women, take enormous risks, eat whatever he want, and basically indulge his flesh.  After a while, he begins to see his colleague Rita in a new light.  She is a lovely woman who is completely disgusted by Phil's insensitivity and selfishness.  As Phil begins to fall for her, he begins to see a new purpose for his life, and he tries to become a better man.

I had never seen a movie remotely like this before I saw it, and nothing has been made like it since.  The ability of the writer for us to be so entertained by some of the same events time and again is noteworthy.  Phil is our device to view all of it in a new light and find it all funny.  The actors around Murray do an amazing job of repeating their tone and emotions, while Bill Murray's character can react to their actions in a new way each time.  In the long run, the movie is actually quite profound.  It has a lot to say about existence, selfishness, and why we do what we do.  But the movie would not work so well if it was not also light hearted and very funny.  Not only is Bill Murray perfect in his role, but the supporting cast and character actors in the film all create a wonderful world in Pennsylvania.  As Phil becomes increasingly desperate to escape Groundhog Day, the obliviousness of everyone around him makes his frustration even funnier.  "Schindler's List" run Best Picture the year this movie came out, and that is appropriate.  But this movie is a giant, and I think it will be remembered and only get better with age.  One of the only weak spots I can find in it is how dated the music is sounds.  The last time I watched it, I found it hard to get through the song playing under the opening credits!  Other than that, this is a great movie.  Dust it off and enjoy it again!

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Idea for Future Posts

Over the last couple of days, I have had a couple of friends suggest movies that they would like to hear my thoughts on...I would love to start a list of some ideas of movies on which to write.  I wondered if some of my readers would mind leaving requests for me in the comment section.  If you are not on blogspot, go ahead and e-mail me at losbascoms@mac.com.  I'm looking forward to hearing from you!


Thursday, January 24, 2013

Kingpin

Art is unnecessary.  Some people, including myself, would say that it is a necessary outgrowth of any culture...but as far as the survival of the race goes, there is nothing necessary about it.  It always involves reflection, and reflection is hard to come by if one is merely trying to survive.  Paradoxically, I think we as humans do need art.  We need to be able to see that we are not alone.  Artistic expression is one way that we know that we are not alone.  From the works of the Psalmist in the Bible, to the paintings of Picasso, to the symphonies of Beethoven, to the film works of Akira Kurosawa, art emanates from every part of the globe, and from every age.

I watched a movie called "Kingpin" recently.  "Kingpin" would never be called high art.  It is low brow comedy, and it does contain a lot of laughs.  When I was through watching it, I was convinced that I had seen a work of art, but I felt worse as a person for watching it.  Some of this has to do with my faith, of course.  My faith has certain tenants regarding sexuality, and when they are joked about so mercilessly and crudely, I sort of feel like I have been dragged through the mud.  However, the movie had great comic acting, the jokes were creative and well constructed.  It's just that nearly every single one of them ended up making me cringe as well.

The movie follows an up and coming bowler named Roy Munson (Woody Harrelson).  He was brought up to bowl by his father, and he is on his way to glory when he meets Ernie McCracken (Bill Murray, playing an absolutely horrible person, and playing it well).  Ernie sees his talent, and gets the naive Roy to help him win at gambling.  One of the victims of their scam gets angry, and as Ernie flees the scene, Roy is left at the mercy of the thugs, who mutilate his hand in a bowling ball return.  Years later, Roy is living a disgusting, sad life.  At a bowling alley in Scranton, PA, he sees a young Amish man (Randy Quaid) who appears to be gifted at bowling.  He sees this young man as a ticket out of his hard luck, so the two of the set off for Reno to compete in a million dollar bowling competition.

The movie was directed by the Faraley Brothers, who went on to direct the highly acclaimed comedy, "There's Something About Mary."  I have never seen that movie, and I'm not sure I will now.  I can appreciate well crafted comedy, even when it is dirty.  Eventually however, it becomes an exercise in understanding what works for me.  This movie ended up being funny, but it didn't have enough truth to warrant the humor, nor the cheer in the humor to make it fun.  Instead, it was continual joking about either bodily functions or human misery.  As a film, on it's own, I found it irredeemable.  As it turns out, each film must be judged on its own.  For instance, I really enjoyed "Fever Pitch", another Faraley Brothers film which I found to be very funny, but much more uplifting.  It is too easy to simply write off a director or an actor without judging actually looking at an individual work.  This film is well crafted on many levels, but since art is interactive, there is more to the experience than simple craft.

It would be easy I suppose, to take the view of abstinence.  After all, if I never watch a movie again, I will never be offended again.  I would never have to have the feeling of being dragged through the mud again.  My faith, at so many levels, is about finding balance.  Sometimes one only knows when one is out of balance once one had fallen off the beam.  Fortunately, I didn't injure myself too badly falling off the beam on this one. 

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Zero Dark Thirty

It's kind of nice to be in a position in which I have absolutely no idea how close to accurate this film is, so I can enjoy it for what it is.  Make no mistake, there are things in the film which are controversial, so their veracity is important.  But, since the end of the movie is already known going in, the journey to the ending is what makes this movie noteworthy.  The movie clearly wants to depict certain things with which the viewer can grapple, but I felt that the movie's strong point was the fact that it didn't preach.  With some of the things depicted in this film being very controversial, I think it would have been easy for director Kathryn Bigelow to stray into the realm of moralising, and I think it is to her credit (and the film's) that she did not.

The film follows the 11 year journey of one CIA agent named Maya.  After the attacks on September 11, 2001, America got involved all over the world in leads regarding terrorism, and became particularly entangled in Iraq and Afganistan.  Maya moves to Pakistan to help the CIA track down terrorists, particularly the ehad of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.  Some of the opening scenes involve Maya acclimating to the difficult world of interrogation.  The scenes depicting water boarding and other interrogation methods are handled honestly, and with very little commentary.  It is clear that the first time Maya sees an interrogation that she is uncomfortable.  She clearly becomes more comfortable over time with the methods (or more calloused, you be the judge), and the movie leaves ambiguous how directly these methods affect the eventual outcome.  One cannot watch the interrogation scenes and not at least question the appropriateness of these actions, but given the scale of the attacks on America, it certainly makes things murky at best, and the movie seems comfortable leaving it that way. 

Once some of that depiction is out the way, the movie actually settles into a standard underdog movie.  Maya believes that one person (Abu Ahmad) is the key to finding Bil Laden.  Maya's boss (a one note character played very well by Kyle Chandler) is not only not convinced that this lead is a good one, but he doesn't even think that finding Bin Laden is that big of a deal.  He feels that the attacks that the US has been under in other places show that Bin Laden is not where the CIA should be focusing.  In a turning point confrontation scene, Maya asserts that all of the other battles he has been fighting are roads that lead back to Osama Bin Laden anyway. Maya is eventually able to land some key intelligence and thus begins the slow march toward that fateful night in May of 2011 when a group of Navy Seals penetrated the home where Osama Bin Laden lived.  As the day of the operation draws near, Maya's obsession with catching Bin Laden takes center stage.

Many have criticized this movie as being pro torture because torture is depicted, and it leads the viewer to think that "torture" was necessary to catch Bin Laden.  I don't necessarily disagree with the position, but after seeing the movie, I think it kind of misses the point.  The film is depicting a world in which terrorism and interrogation exist, and doesn't spoon feed the viewer what to think of it.  The world of war is a very different one.  One of the reasons war is to be avoided is that it creates a myriad of moral ambiguities.  Saying that interrogation of this nature is evil sort of begs the question, since war itself is evil (though I believe it can be morally justified at times-a necessary evil.)  I think that the viewer needs to ask whether or not this film does a good job depicting the world in which these things happen, and I think this film does do that well. 

The acting is also very good.  Jessica Chastain seems to land one great role after another (the mother in "Tree of Life", the isolated housewife in "The Help").  She carries this movie very well in the put upon "against all odds" story.  The supporting cast is also quite good.  I thought James Gandofini truly stole the scenes he was in as CIA director Leon Panetta. All of the actors (including several actors of Middle Eastern descent) create a very effective portrait of this man hunt.  I do not think this movie will be a classic, but it was very effective, and it stands out as a movie for our time.  It is a story very close to all of us who have lived in the post 9/11 world.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Les Miserables


    2012 will always be always be remembered by me as a very complicated year.  But one thing stayed with me almost the whole year.  In May, I decided to begin the task of reading Victor Hugo's colossal novel Les Miserables.  I cannot remember if I knew at the time that a movie version of the musical was being made, but I knew that I wanted to read this book that I had heard so much about.  As I began the book, the opening pages were both verbose and beautiful.  They recount the life and character of a Bishop in a French village called Digne.  The opening chapters go into tremendous detail about this Bishop, but he does not figure at all in most of the story.  Instead, it is essential to the greater arc of Hugo's narrative that he show this Bishop's character so that when Hugo's protagonist (the paroled thief Jean Valjean) comes to him, we already know how he will treat him.

    As I found myself enthralled in the beginnings of this story back in May, I called my dad to tell him how much I was enjoying this book.  He was very aware of the book and the musical, but had never read the book or seen the play.  I was so excited to share this work with him, and I hoped that some day he too would read the book and we could discuss it, as we had discussed so many works of art over the years.  When I finally finished the novel in October, I no longer had my dad with me to discuss the work.  Also, I had begun to await the arrival of the movie version of the musical with great anticipation.  I am confident that any time I return to this story, whether I see it on the stage, the screen, or read the book again, I will be reminded of this time in my life, and how the story of suffering and grace that Hugo gave us all became a soothing balm for me in a troubling time.

    The story of Les Miserables is a story that touches me for many different reasons.  The primary reason I find it so moving is its understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The movie which Tom Hooper directed does very little to water down that element of both the musical and the book.  I want to here issue a SPOILER ALERT...some of the thematic elements upon which I will reflect involve plot point from the end of the story.  As I mentioned before, the character of the Bishop at the beginning of the story is key.  He figures in this way: as Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) leaves his life as a prisoner, he is given papers by a French officer named Javert (Russell Crowe) to show that he is an ex-convict.  As such, no one will hire him for work, nor take him in.  When the Bishop of Digne is the only one who takes him in, Valjean repays him by stealing his silver dishes and heading out of town.  Unfortunately for Valjean, he is caught trying to escape, and when the police bring him to the Bishop, the Bishop merely states that Valjean had forgotten to also take the silver candlesticks that he had given him as well.  As the police leave, the Bishop charges Valjean to become an honest man with the silver. 

    Valjean does indeed accomplish this, but Javert never trusts him.  Many years later, Jean Valjean is a mayor in a town as well as a factory owner who employs a woman name Fantine.  Fantine has had a daughter out of wedlock, and when that becomes known, she is thrown out by the foreman of the factory without Valjean's knowledge.  As Fantine's life unravels, eventually she dies, but not before Valjean promises to raise her child.  The story continues to involve itself with uprisings of the working class poor in Paris as well as the ongoing struggle between grace and law that is symbolized by Javert (law) and Jean Valjean (grace).  The film is a musical, and there are several memorable musical moments along the way which are stunning.

    As a film, this movie is a remarkable accomplishment on many levels.  Each musical number was recorded live on camera, while most musicals have had actors or actresses recording songs beforehand and lip synching on camera.  Modern technology made it possible for director Tom Hooper to digitally remove the microphones on the performers, thereby lending an authenticity to the musical numbers that I have never seen in a musical before.  The photography and visual imagination of the film is also great.  The scenery gives us the rough streets of Paris in all of their poverty and filth. 

    On another front, I think this musical works better as a movie than on the stage.   For instance, in one of the the most popular numbers in the musical, "One Day More", each character can sing their parts in their actual place in the story, rather than all the characters standing next to each other on the stage.  The film allows them to be singing separately, and I think it works better. 

    The cast of this movie does great work.  I cannot think of a more harrowing scene in almost any film than Anne Hathaway's interpretation of the show stopping "I Dreamed A Dream" number toward the beginning of the movie.  Tom Hooper's use of silence in this scene was also quite effective, as the desolation Fantine feels comes across on the screen.  As Javert, Russell Crowe evokes an effective presence.  Even though he doesn't have the finest singing voice, he does a great job of inhabiting the character.  Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are perfect as the bottom feeding Thenaldeiers.  Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are very good in their roles as young lovers Cosette and Marius.  Daniel Huttlestone is pitch perfect as the street waif Gavroche.  And Hugh Jackman anchors the whole film with a remarkable presence as Jean Valjean.  He does not have the best singing voice, but his ability to evoke true emotion from these songs and to show this character as the world weary man that he is is truly remarkable.  I quite admired Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, but I think Hugh Jackman's work moved me even more.  The film (and the musical for that matter) have drawn criticism from some for being too over the top and emotional.  It is fair to say that this movie is not nuanced.  It is a "pull out all the stops", weepy, emotional experience.  Since that is not everyone's cup of tea, that should be kept in mind.  On the other hand, a story which wears both its heart and its message on its sleeve can be quite refreshing.  I love a good, challenging art house movie as much as anyone, but I also have lots of room in my heart for a overwrought spectacle such as this.  Tom Hooper delivers a movie musical with a distinct style and vision, and he should be considered for his second best director award in three years (he won for "The King's Speech" two years ago).  This film is at least worthy of appreciation, whether one likes the overwrought romanticism or not.

    But beyond the technical and artistic greatness of this film version, it is the thematic elements of the story that touch me.  The depiction of those themes is done very well here, so that makes the experience that much more moving.  With all of these wonderful performances and music, there is much to be seen as well from the depth of the story.  As Jean Valjean attempts to leave behind his past, Javert will not let him forget his sins.  Javert is a true legalist, and he cannot abide the thought that a man should not be punished to the full extent of the law.  He is, in the end, completely unable to live once he is in turn shown grace, and the struggle between these two men and what they stand for is the heart of the story.  This is what I would have loved to share with my dad.  As a believer in the Christian message, the appeals in this movie to the grace and freedom of the cross are rich.  Dad would have been truly moved by those images as they flickered across the screen.  Ironically, this is also a movie about suffering and how we go to death, and these two issues were brought home to me in a real way last year.  As Jean Valjean's life comes to an end, he sees death very much as St. Paul does in 2 Timothy.  Death is the end of a long race and struggle, and the rest that he can find in death is apparent, especially as he can rest in the salvation of his soul.  I don't know why dad died last year, and I never will.  But I do know that the longer I live, the more I see how much suffering and weariness there is in this world.  There is a certain comfort that can be taken in the possibility of peace beyond the grave.  Jean Valjean has that in his faith, and so, I believe, does anyone who comes under the grace of God through Christ.  This powerful reality does not negate the horrible suffering of this world, but it can redeem it, and that truth became real to me this year more than ever as I buried my father and immersed myself in this powerful story.  Maybe it is not an accident that I saw this movie in the first days of 2013.  Maybe this year will be one wherein I can move forward.  However, I am given no such guarantee.  Things could get worse this year for all I know.  But one thing I know...like Jean Valjean, I hope in the grace of Christ.  The beauty of this message flashes across the screen in this movie with such richness.  This story will always occupy a special place in my life not only due to its content, but when I encountered it on my journey.  To see these truths come across the screen in an ordinary multiplex in an ordinary suburb was truly an extraordinary experience.