December 10, 2009
The Top 50 Movies of the 2000's (20-16)
Films 20-16
Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers was a terrible disappointment. He felt the need to honor the men who fought and died at Iwo Jima by portraying them as hapless tools of an uncaring government. Eastwood avoided delving into the details of the horrific fighting and decided to unravel a long, relatively pointless story of how the iconic image of the men lifting the flag at Iwo Jima came into being. Eastwood luckily made two films about the battle. Flags of Our Fathers was meant to show the American side of the war. This film was intended to show the Japanese side of the conflict. As American forces close in on the island of Iwo Jima, the Japanese forces face near certain annihilation. They are the last thing that stands between the Americans and the Japanese homeland. In the minds of the soldiers, if they lose their positions it is their families that will pay the price.
This grim situation is shown through the eyes of two men General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe) and lowly foot soldier Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya). The battle sequences are hard to watch at times but, like Saving Private Ryan, are worth the effort. Eastwood captures the horror and confusion of war as best as he can.
This is the kind of thoughtful, detailed film the Americans deserved to receive.
Caution: Excessive violence
Director Rian Johnson's debut is one of the strongest introductions since Bryan Singer released The Usual Suspects. His gritty, intelligent film takes a huge risk. Johnson shoehorns the elements film noir into a high school setting. His strenuous combination succeeds in part because Johnson is aware enough to wink at the audience the whole time.The plot is about about a teenage boy who is tries to unravel the mystery of his ex-girlfriend’s murder. The teenage boy Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a classic film noir anti-anti-hero and is adorned with all of the cliche trappings of the form. His dialog is surreal and snappy. His demeanor is aloof and he does well when cornered. Gordon-Levitt provides a well-tempered performance in a film that could have made him look like a fool.
The risk Johnson takes could have fallen on it's face but he pulls it off and the result is a very enjoyable, quick witted feast for film lovers.
Cautions: Violence, language
Clint Eastwood employs his craggy face and low grumbling voice to give life to Walt Kowalski, a bitter, racist Korean War vet who has seen his once flourishing neighborhood fade into a trashy ghetto. Walt slowly warms up to the Hmong family living next door and protects them from a Hmong gang that terrorizes the community.
The script by Nick Schenk is the real star of the production. He has written a marvelous character piece that patiently plays itself out. Schenk doesn't simply put all of his best work into developing Walt but also works to humanize the supporting cast. Schenk's sense of humor, and disregard for political correctness in favor of telling the truth is refreshing.One element of the script that is often ignored is Walt's racism. In the beginning of the film he spits racist barbs at his neighbors to keep them at bay. As he befriends his Hmong neighbors he continues to drop racist remarks but now they are tossed out as signs of affection. The transformation in Walt isn't necessarily in how he acts, but the intention in his actions - very powerful.
Cautions: Language, violence
This film about a man with no short term memory who is hunting down the killer of his wife is truly unique and brilliantly laid out. On top of the complicated concept of keeping up with a guy who forgets everything about his life every five minutes, Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) raises the directorial stakes by telling the story in reverse.The use of the forward moving hotel phone conversation (in black & white) as a buffer between the backward moving scenes of the rest of the film completely makes me geek out. Even though the film delivers a horrid existential message, the brilliance of the plotting and the intelligence of the script make this well worth suffering through the low philosophy.
Caution: Language, strong violence
Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), a despondent Swedish boy, befriends a new girl in his apartment complex. The girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson,) is a strange sort. Given to appearing out of nowhere and being short on the small talk, Eli is not like the other girls Oskar's age. This is probably because she's not his age. She's over 200 years old. Oh, and a vampire as well.
The two form an odd relationship. He finds a anchor in his drifting life, she lands herself a dutiful servant. Director Tomas Alfredson's haunting film is more than a simple vampire flick. Alfredson creates a mesmerizing character piece about relationships, coming of age and past sins.
Alfredson's delivery is as perfect as it could possibly be with one exception. In an unfortunate choice, the Swedish director chose to reveal Eli without her pants, facing the camera. Now, this is done for a reason and technically what we see is a dummy, not the underage actress. This said, I have a firm rule about child nudity in films such as we see here - it is pornographic by default. My stance has caused a number of mouth-breathing dimwits from Facebook to gnash their teeth and tug out their hair (see the comments section from the full review for the troll-fest).Why would I put this on the list with this outstanding issue? Because despite this issue, this is one of the best films of the decade and one of the best horror films ever made. I strongly recommend you watch the movie but I also strongly recommend you skip over the scene where Oskar slowly opens the door to find Eli undressing. Its a few seconds of detestable decision making in an otherwise pitch perfect film.
Caution: Excessive violence, nudity
Labels: list, miscellaneous, The Top 50 Movies of the 2000's
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 8:00 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
6 Comments:
Oh, and so is Brick. I think I put it there after reading your review.
Haven't seen any of these. Gran Torino and Momento are in my queue.
"I have a firm rule about child nudity in films such as we see here - it is pornographic by default."
I'm sorry you see it that way - sorry for you that is, as you presumably cannot separate nudity from sex. Since pornography is defined as "writing, films or pictures designed to be sexually exciting", you have just admitted that you find naked children sexually exciting! I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you have said.
To classify all childhood nakedness in films (or presumably pictures) as pornographic is to claim that many of the classic works of art are pornographic. Again, I would hope you didn't mean that.
Nudity CAN be non-sexual, particularly when it is an innocent child. To make it anything else reflects more on the observer than on the child or the picture.
Sigh, here we go again. Yes, I oversimplified my statement for the sake of getting it out there. I will delve a little deeper to satisfy your curiosity.
You will note in my state I use the words "such as we see here". I would hope you take that to understand that this means there are exceptions such as innocent family films, the presence of nudity such as cherubs and whatnot. In this film the nudity, while it is meant to show he/she castrated, is shown in a definite sexual context. Oskar walks in on Eli, which means Eli is naked not nude (allowing there's a difference). Eli then stands for a moment looking at Oskar. Given the budding relationship with its sexual overtones - this context is sufficient to classify as a sexuality scene involving children which I am comfortable defining as pornography.
I also sigh and feel "here we go again" whenever I come across sweeping statements that amount to nudity=sex. For something to satisfy the definition of pornography is has to be "designed to be sexually exciting". Just because there may be sexual overtones to the relationship between Eli and Oskar this does not automatically mean that the scene is sexually exciting to the viewer of the film, even less does it mean that it is designed to be so. Once more, it comes down to the perception of the observer, many would see such a "budding relationship" as sweet.
I also feel the same about the assumption that children and nudity don't mix. Children only have a problem with nudity if they are taught to by adults. Often, far too often, this leads to body shame; being told to cover their bodies, to hide their bodies away as something shameful. It is interesting to note that those nations where nudity is accepted as a part of everyday life, have much lower rates of teenage pregnancy, abortions and STI's. Germany and Denmark are just two examples where nudity is common in parks and on beaches whenever the weather is warm enough and they have one-tenth the teenage pregnancy rate of the US. Teaching body shame is child abuse.
I take exception to the needless presentation of a child's lower regions and now we're cast into body shame and child abuse?
Pornography: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
The director knew the overtones of the scene. If he didn't he shouldn't be directing.
It isn't possible to see the relationship between Eli and Oskar as sweet. That's a reaction you're hanging on this outside of the context of the film. Eli is 200 years old. We know it's relationship with her current man slave. By this time in the film, if I recall properly, we understand Oskar is heading this direction as well. Not sweet.
OK - on to your other paragraph:
"Children only have a problem with nudity if they are taught to by adults." If you say this I have to assume you don't have children of your own. Children can be taught shame, sure, but their protective instincts of their bodies is completely natural. Not unlike how children become private about their toilet time, they also naturally become private about their personal areas. This is normal, natural and there is nothing wrong about it. It has nothing to do with shame and everything to do with self respect.
Your assertion that teaching children to cover up is teaching them shame is sweeping. Sure, there are extreme examples out there - Muslims having women wear burkas, but speaking about the average, everyday Westerner - this doesn't hold up.
Lets say if my daughter, when she is a teen, decides to dress in skimpy clothes before she leaves for a night out with her friends. I will demand she puts on less revealing clothes. This is not an act of oppression or teaching shame. It is an act of proper parenting and instruction.
About the teen pregnancy issue - I'm not sure your two data sets necessarily relate 100%. For one thing, our abortion rates are probably higher because of our government backed abortion industry and its persistent targeting of our urban neighborhoods. As far as pregnancy and STDs - is this an issue of hygiene, safe sex practices and or social concerns beyond whether a kid is taught "body shame"?
Teaching body shame is child abuse. It can be, in extreme circumstances. Again, instructing a child that their private parts are indeed private is as far from abuse as one can get. It is central to self-respect and self-control.
Its good to argue with someone who is level headed for a change. Thanks for the retort.
Post a Comment
<< Home