Short Review: The reeking.


Hilary Swank portrays Katherine, an ex-Christian missionary, who spends her time debunking claims of miracles with scientific explanations. Katherine is called to a small southern town that is being inundated with what appears to be replicas of the 10 plagues from Exodus. Sure, there’s lice instead of gnats and the plagues occur in the wrong order but the point is made. Katherine, who has left her faith, is forced to confront her disbelief as each plague ticks off one by one.

Yawn.

The thing about the plot is that it relies on the the stupidity (or arrogance) of its main character. Katherine is shown to be an intellectually aggressive woman with a sharp mind. She travels around the world and is capable of exposing miracles as bunk with ease. All this and she’s still incapable of the intellectual jump that although if she can explain the scientific reasons for the ten plagues that these reasons don't deny the existence of God. Just because you can explain how something happened doesn't mean you've excluded the hand of the Almighty. If she were a missionary, given to the faith she claims to have had, this logical connection would have already been made.

Unfortunately, it is not remarkable to report that a mainstream film places theological concerns on the back burner in order to promote a sophomoric plot. It also isn't shocking that this film doesn't have a deep regard for its Christian characters or the its Biblical source material. Most Christians in the film are shown to be cruel southern booger eaters who spit out condemnations every time they speak. They even go so far as to have the Christian leader be a sweaty, pig-faced Boss Hogg type (complete with all white suit). They’re all thoughtless, impulsive, gun-toting morons who will believe anything – they also don’t pray, mention Jesus or show any reverence towards God at all. Since I’m on the subject of the townsfolk, I’ll also mention they’re all white. You know, just like the real south. It’s nothing but a bunch of angry white Christians sweating on their shotguns waiting to string someone up.

What’s interesting is that this film begins with a depiction of the city of Concepcion in Chile. The city is shown to be a horrid third-world toilet which is being poisoned by an evil corporation. This depiction has nothing to do with the real Concepcion which is modern, clean and apparently free of toxic waste. Did the filmmakers bother to investigate any of the peoples or locations they decided to show in this film?

At least they spread their ineptness equally.

This film also abuses Biblical text for cheap thrills. The plagues don't have a Biblical foundation, and Exodus isn't even quoted. This nonsensical flick offers no connection between the original plagues and the mess this film prattles on about. I’m not against the use of the plagues, but if you’re going to pull from the Bible you better have some context that makes sense IN LIGHT OF YOUR SOURCE MATERIAL. Some of us take this is the word of God after all.

Even forgiving the rather offensive disregard the filmmakers have for the Bible, this film is still an unmitigated disaster. The clunky script doesn’t provide any suspense or mystery. The dialog is functional but doesn’t have any depth or interest. The plagues themselves aren’t visually arresting and aren’t handled to their maximum effect. We’re looking at Biblical plagues and its boring – they actually make them boring.

It’s my recommendation that you skip this film. It doesn’t have the intellectual weight that it should and since it also doesn’t offer any guttural thrills, it can only waste your time.


Related Reviews:
Another Hilary Swank movie
The Gift (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema de Merde
Reel.com

Labels: AnnaSophia Robb, anti-Christian, apocalypse, Christians, film, Friday Rewind, Hilary Swank, movie review, Stephen Rea

Short Review: And I thought my family reunions were tense!


With the 2005 release of End of The Spear along with this documentary, the world is reminded of the deeply moving story of salvation, forgiveness and redemption of the Waodani tribe.

In this well paced and constructed documentary, we are told the story of five missionaries who engage the Waodani at a time when the tribe was embroiled in violent attacks against one another. The Stone Age tribe would kill and torture over nothing and the introduction of missionaries into this situation led to tragedy. Each of the five missionaries: Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Roger Youdarian, Ed McCully and Peter Fleming were slaughtered by the Waodani. Over the course of their lifetimes, the wives and children of the murdered missionaries not only returned to interact with the Waodani, but they have lived among them. The families of the slain missionaries through acts of Christian forgiveness and understanding that many of us cannot fathom have not only helped save the Waodani, but have become family with these people. Think of it, you kill my father or my husband but I still forgive you and we will become like brother and sister. Moreover, I will introduce you to Jesus Christ and through him you will be saved.

The story is laid out patiently and thoroughly. The interviews of the families of the missionaries along with those of the Waodani are fascinating. To see how the Waodani used to behave (casual murder, infanticide and torture) to how they are one generation later is stunning. This story is enthralling and uplifting. The horror of the murders being able to be turned into the salvation of a small culture is a lesson for us all.

Overall, this is a very good documentary. Its subject matter is entrancing regardless of your religious background. This story of forgiveness and understanding will speak to your heart and mind. For Christians, this film will have particular meaning since it shows to power of God to turn that which was meant for evil into good in his name.


Related Reviews:
Christian films
Mercy Streets (2000)
The Hiding Place (1975)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel.com
Hollywood Jesus

Labels: Christian film, documentary, film, Friday Rewind, movie review, Waodani

Short Review: It answers the question what would it be like if Superman became an undergraduate philosophy major and didn’t have the wits to know he shouldn’t take his professors seriously.



Zack Snyder’s (300, Dawn of the Dead) adaptation of Alan Moore’s Watchmen is faithful to the original which means it is overly complex and at times downright silly. In the spirit of over thinking simple things and spending way too much energy to not say a great deal, I will break this review into sections for particular audiences:



The fact that I have to write a separate review for people who haven’t read the graphic novel(s) should tell you everything you need to know. The film takes place in an alternate reality where regular humans dress up like superheroes. They don’t have super powers except one guy who is glowing blue, and walks around naked with his personal dangle flapping in the wind. The heroes in this story are different because they're mopes and don’t want to be heroic. There are plenty of conflicted people with furrowed brows and tearful eyes.

Despite the dramatics, Watchmen is one of the most visually engaging films I’ve ever seen. Visually, this is a masterful work. Even with Snyder’s love for unprompted slow motion and gimmicky shot placements, the film is brilliantly executed. If, like me, your main interest in the film is seeing the spectacle on display, you will not be disappointed.

I do warn if you have to see it read the graphic novels first or at least glance over Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe outstanding primer to help you on your way. For most people, if you go into this film without prior knowledge you will be stuck trying to figure out why you should care. Given how hollow the film actually is, you may still be left wondering that question regardless of your prep. Either way, if you’re going to sit there and watch people being set on fire, chopped into pieces, raped and disintegrated you may want to get the back story so you can understand why.



The long standing opinion is that Watchmen is simply too knotted, too pondering to make it to the screen. This opinion is correct. The film doesn’t work. Zack Snyder was the right man for the job of adapting this to the screen but the task was simply too big. The problem is that movies are indeed different than comic books. The episodic nature of the story works fine in the panels of a graphic novel but it doesn’t translate into the language of film. Snyder is so intent on being faithful he wasn’t able to overcome this difference. When combined with his time constraints, Snyder is forced to shorthand important historical information leaving his audience to fill in too many gaps. For example, when Silk Spectre II discovers that The Comedian is her father there is no great “ah-ha!” for the audience. There is very little time spent on the relationships between the Jupiter women and The Comedian so the depth of the trio’s relationship is completely lost. The big revelation becomes a another ho-hum fact tossed on the pile.

The film also stumbles by Snyder avoiding the inclusion of the side story Tales of the Black Freighter (released separately straight to DVD) and the other insertions. These don’t go to build on the main narrative so it is understandable why he dropped them from the production. Their omission hurts because they are philosophical olios. They help construct the piece’s worldview and aid in the development of the series’ tone. In addition, without their distraction the basic flaws of the original story are plainly obvious. The presumptuousness of the plot, the thinness of the motivations and hurried actions of the characters all stand out because we can give them that much more attention. This is not a desirable attribute when your plot is so loose.

The story itself has always been problematic. In the original book it is well disguised by the sheer force of its originality and headiness. The eye candy Snyder presents can’t carry the lacking plot. The book manages to balance the competing storylines where Snyder’s film amplifies silly love triangle between Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan and Night Owl II. The film is consumed by their nonsense.



With one exception, the performances are underwhelming. To defend the actors I will say the characters don’t offer them much to work with. The perfect example of this is Silk Spectre II, performed by Malin Akerman. Akerman is certainly an aesthetically pleasing choice, but the character comes across as just another poorly written female role. She’s a grown up version of a sixteen year old ninny whimpering because daddy won’t let her take out the car. Akerman doesn’t manage infuse the character with any life so she becomes a latex laden mannequin who recites dialog. Akerman is not the weakest link in the production. The lowest points all come from one singularly dismal performance. To put it plainly, Matthew Goode is bad. Goode plays Ozymandias and justly has him as snobbish and effete. He gets that much right. The performance as a whole is uninspired. Goode manages to take a complicated character and turn him into a girlish bore.

The stand out is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. To be fair the character is the best written and has the most meat for an actor. Jackie Earle Haley exceeds expectations. I’m willing to claim that the man deserves a best supporting actor nod for his effort. He was born for the role and handles it perfectly. I cannot conceive how someone could do better.

I do not recommend viewing this film. For the average film audience member, it will likely confuse or bore. This is a very bitter, violent work that relishes the brutality. The overall messages of the film are like listening to a gaggle of depressed art students strung out on downers. There is much said but it ultimately means nothing, since when you argue the universe is meaningless then your complaint fails to have any value. You may as well go with the flow because any other action is irrational (assuming there is rationality in your stupid existential universe.) If indeed humans create their own reality and their own morality, then that’s how it is. Making a movie with a big naked blue guy crying in his beer on Mars isn’t going to change it. If everything is senseless and we're a pathetic joke then why should I sit and listen to fictional crybabies bellyache about it? What's the point?



The worldview of the film is the same as the book. Nihilism soaks every nook and cranny and the meaninglessness of the human experience is studied and explored. Heroes are false gods and the world is just a nihilistic nightmare where might make right and the mighty hate themselves for being unable to fix the situation. Moore deconstructed the hero with the intent of dismantling the superhero figure. He was successful. You can’t read the book or watch the movie without it peeling away something from the genre. His work, in my opinion, opened the doors for more deconstructions across our culture. James Bond, Batman, Star Wars, and fairy tales themselves though productions like Shrek have all been remodeled in Moore’s wake. I see these all as connected. Moore, Snyder and others tear down our heroes but don’t replace them with anything. We’ve seen this throughout American culture. We have struck down every meaningful ideal, every useful institution and attempted to rebuild it based on wispy secular whims. We've built a culture that keeps looking back instead of looking forward. Our deconstructed culture hasn’t fed us and in our starvation we’ve turned to post modern cannibalism where we regurgitate the societal milestones of earlier times and consume them once again for sustenance. We stand now with no valuable culture identity of our own. Everything in our culture today is a recycled, rehashed token from a previous era, this film included. This film brings the deconstructed, whiny superhero to life but it fails to give us anything in exchange for his demise.



For those of you who don’t know better please note – this is not Spider-man. This is an adult film dealing with adult topics very plainly. There is wall-to-wall violence and a number of the scenes are quite sexual. Then there’s that business of the big blue guy walking about with his tackle exposed. Those who are concerned about viewing brutality or sexual behavior are strongly advised to avoid this film.




Related Reviews:
Movies based on graphic novels
V for Vendetta (2005)
Sin City (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SouthCon
Jim Treacher

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Friday Rewind, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder