Short Review: Greek mythology as related by an abused teenage boy - and not a bright one at that.



Two words describe this movie:

Ridiculous

Embarrassing

This is a remake of the 1981 film of the same name which condensed and dumbed-down the tale of Perseus for modern tastes. With this effort, they didn't just dumb things down. They held it down and lobotomized it with a screwdriver and a rock.

Sam Worthington plays Perseus. Well, it's not fair to say he "plays" the role. He retains the name of Perseus and then runs around screaming while flashing the back of his thighs. That is the extent of his performance. Nearly every line is bellowed. The poor dear apparently thinks that if you yell something it equates emoting. A stupid piece of dialog said loudly is simply more clear in its stupidity.

Worthington, who most people know from his emotionally vacant performance in Avatar, is possibly the least engaging leading man of our generation. He makes Keanu Reeves seem approachable and Will Smith a versatile master of the art of acting. Worthington appeared to have come out of nowhere. One day - WHAM, the guy is in every major production of the summer. One would assume this was due to his brilliance. Nope. He's just a muscly guy who likes to announce his lines like he's trying to project over a crowd at a football game.


The story of Perseus trying to regain his humanity (he is a demi-god, born of Zeus (Liam Neeson)), is notably short on human emotion. Why? The central problem isn't Worthington, although he offers one heck of a hurdle for the audience to navigate. The script is the issue in this production. Screenwriters Travis Beacham, Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi (yes, it took three people to ruin this film), have delivered a content-free, predictable, hollow script. It isn't predictable because the tale of Perseus is known. It is predictable because every action, every turn, every event is boldly projected and executed. The scenes follow well worn action film trajectories. This makes the scenes less enjoyable, given they are without tension. Since the movie is little more than a string of perils, the lack of tension removes the one thing that could keep the audience engaged.

The story jumps from one peril to the next without much character development to glue things together. Perseus confronts Hades (Ralph Finnes) then meanders around until his zombie half-father tries to kill him, then his zombie half-father's hand turns into a giant scorpion - then bigger scorpions come then some guys who look like Tusken Radiers but not as cool show up - then they fight Medusa then they...you get the point. This is a series of events, not a story.


To make matters worse, Ralph Finnes and Liam Neeson are forced to wear costumes that make them look utterly foolish. They hung an obviously fake beard and a bulk of ultra-shiny armor on Neeson and assumed it made him look "Zeus-ish". The same goes for Finnes. He is given grubby clothes and an awkward hairline and called the job done. The two actors look like they're doing screen tests for early versions of their wardrobe. Given the dialog they have to recite, it literally feels like they're doing screen tests through much of the movie.


My final complaint, well it's not my final complaint about this movie, but it is the last one I bother with here, is about THE KRAKEN. The Kraken is talked about in hushed tones throughout the movie. It is Hades' special weapon, it is unbeatable and destroyed the Titans of old. Since the thing is talked about with such reverence by even the gods themselves, expectations that something awesome will be released at the end of the film.

"Awesome" is not the word that leaps to mind.


The Kraken is a cross between the monster from Cloverfield and the Rancor from Return of the Jedi. The Kraken turns out to be a leathery turd with fangs. Worse yet, it is a leathery turd with fangs that is subdued in mere seconds by a teeth gritting Perseus. If the dialog had been realistic at all, Perseus' first line after defeating the Kraken should have been "That's it? I don't see what everyone was making a fuss about."




Related Reviews:
Liam Neeson movies
Taken (2008)
Kinsey (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
A Nutshell Review
Reel Views



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: film, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson, movie review, Ralph Fiennes, Sam Worthington

Short Review: Proof that even superheroes hate to go to work everyday.


Director Christopher Nolan has shown that even if you have your hero dressed up for Halloween, it doesn’t mean you have to play down to your audience. This is easily the best version of Batman to be produced. Where the Tim Burton line of Batman films were comical and goofy, this one is brooding and serious. I believe the latter is more suited to this hero. Batman is a guilt-ridden anti-hero, he’s not Superman. Nolan was very smart to take this opportunity to explore the underside of the conflicted post-modern hero.

Exposing the darker side of the Batman character is an interesting choice because he is essentially a god (notice the lower case). Today’s superheroes are much like the pantheon of Greek gods of old. They are a stopping point between us and God (notice the upper case). The superheroes (gods) are super human but sub-God. The Greek gods were powerful and controlled the fates of men but were flawed with lust and greed like man. It is interesting to see one of these fallen gods (Batman) be troubled with this situation. This film takes the fallen hero’s humanity very seriously and that makes this film worth the investment.


Christian Bale is a solid choice for this reinvention of the cinematic Batman. The darker take on Bruce Wayne is a perfect fit for Bale's intense performance style. He is the kind of performer who can read the instructions for a can opener and make it sound like its the launch codes of a nuclear warhead about to be unleashed. Bale's brooding presence heightens Wayne's guilt-ridden, conflicted personality. Through the strong display of Wayne's emotional baggage, his transformation into Batman makes more sense. In the goofier versions of the character, there was always a disconnect. He was heroic, yet he was dressed up like a bat - a shadowy vermin.

I appreciate that Nolan and David S. Goyer, who wrote the screenplay, have left us with a perfect set-up for the sequel. I won’t ruin the ending but with Gotham left in the state that it is in, the rise of The Joker is perfectly logical. The ending of the film is a far better beginning for The Joker than having him being dipped in a vat of goo as they did in the Burton version.

Too bad they messed up The Dark Knight so badly. For more on why The Dark Knight is useless, read my review.

Overall, this is a top-notch film that has more brains that a majority of films released today. By the time this film was released, Nolan had already proven himself to be a director of notable talent. This production marked him as one of the top of his generation

I highly recommend this film but would caution people with small children. While this is a superhero movie, there are some rough scenes that may frighten smaller kids to death. Be warned.


Related Reviews:
Christopher Nolan movies
Inception (2010)
The Prestige (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Variety
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, film, Gary Oldman, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie review, superhero, Tom Wilkinson

The long-awaited addition to the Narnia series has produced its first trailer. Like the other productions, there is plenty of striking images. Like the other productions, this one seems to have the same stilted presentation.

I enjoyed The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and thought Prince Caspian was lacking. My gut is telling me this is more like the latter than the former. I hope to be surprised.








Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Ben Barnes, Bill Nighy, film, Liam Neeson, movie trailer

Short Review: Can't get a biopic of MLK done but this pervert gets lionized. Someone stick a fork in our culture...



Look at the original DVD box above. Liam Neeson peeking through a keyhole with the words "Let's Talk About Sex" underneath. The marketing team thinks showing the main character obviously peeking through a keyhole at others copulating is a selling point. Can we, as a society with hopfully an ounce of self-respect left, please give a collective "ewwww!"

I hope you're not shocked when I tell you that this was unpleasant movie.

I’m not against frank discussions about sexuality. such conversations are needed in a mature, intelligent culture. I believe people should be given information about sexuality and safe sexual practices. I am hardly a prude. What I do have a serious problem with is public discussions of sexuality and sexual practices outside of a moral context. It is one thing to offer biological dissertations on how intercourse occurs, its another to start rambling on about what should be considered normative behaviors with the same cold tone.

The film proposes America was a ignorant place where no one understood human sexuality. In comes Alfred Kinsey with his brave pronouncements of just how depraved we all are and now everyone is better. We all can talk about sex and think about it freely and with an informed attitude. But where is the morality?

People used to have horribly misguided ideas about the biological functions of sexuality (oral sex leads to pregnancy as an example.) But now, in our new enlightened state everyone is informed. Oral sex does not lead to pregnancy – heck even children know this. The problem is that sexuality without morality leads to a new kind of ignorance. We now have a couple of generations who believes oral and anal sex aren’t really sex. Which society is worse off? Which kind of sexual ignorance is more damaging?


Kinsey was a troubled man who did a great deal of damage to the world. To offer him a film honoring his efforts is ignorant and deceptive. To offer grand proclamations about the need for sexual freedom is easy from the high towers of the universities and Hollywood. But there is a deep and serious human cost involved. Look at your society and tell me if this “freedom” is free.

By the way, the film itself was passably done. It was neither a strong production nor a weak one technically speaking. The positives of the film are outweighed by the obtuse message and glaring anti-morality messages in the story. The point of the film is to obviously denigrate anyone who holds a connection between morality and sexuality and praise the free-love types.

This is a blatant reworking of history which means it is propaganda. As far as propaganda is concerned, you can do better than this. Obviously, I do not recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Liam Neeson movies
Taken (2008)
Excalibur (1981)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Blend
London Times




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: biography, Chris O'Connell, Dylan Baker, film, John Lithgow, Laura Linney, Liam Neeson, movie review, Oliver Platt, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Curry, timothy hutton, William Sadler

This did quite well when originally released and for good reason, this is a well-built revenge piece. Byran Mills (Liam Neeson), a former spy, is forced to apply his considerable skills at wreaking havoc when is daughter is kidnapped while overseas. A bad thing happens and me makes worse things happen until things are good again...just like in real

Written by Luc Besson (The Fifth Element, Léon, Wasabi), the film follows his usual path. He introduces a grumpy, tired anti-hero who you probably wouldn't like if you knew him in real life. Captain Grumpy is then shoved unpleasantly into a situation where he needs to protect a bright-faced young girl. Capt. Grumpola then slaughters more humans than Jeffrey Dahmer on a bender. No moral or legal consequences erupt as our hero, the guy we are meant to emulate, destroys the world to save the girl.

Like all revenge flicks, such as The Brave One or Edge of Darkness, this movie works to avoid the moral quandary of vigilante morality. This has always been a confusing consistency in these films. If the filmmakers avoid the moral consequences of their vigilante hero, then where do they get off proposing he/she has the moral right to act on their own behalf? The general tract is that the hero is pushed into a situation where they need to act. It is a moral imperative, they then descend into the lowest of criminal behavior in order to set things straight. They begin with a moral structure and trade it in to live a "might makes right" existence. This exchange is rarely discussed and makes these films little more than Death Wish with better lighting.


Related Reviews:
Liam Neeson movies
Seraphim Falls (2006)
Excalibur (1981)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Christianity Today
The Austin Chronicle





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: film, Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, movie review

Perseus (Sam Worthington) battles Medusa and The Kraken in order to save the beautiful Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) in this remake of the original 1981 movie.

It is visually stunning and looks like a thrill ride. That's the good news. The bad news? It is written by the same folks who gave is the unwatchable Æon Flux, a soulless, emotionally retarded mess. The other bad news? This is directed by Louis Leterrier who's big success are The Incredible Hulk and Transporter 2.

Not a good pedigree.



Screenwriters: Travis Beacham (Dog Days of Summer), Phil Hay (Æon Flux) and Matt Manfredi (Æon Flux)
Director: Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk)
Actors: Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson (Darkman), Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges), Gemma Arterton (The Quantum of Solace), Danny Huston (30 Days of Night), Pete Postlethwaite (The Usual Suspects), Nicholas Hoult (The Weather Man) and Alexa Davalos (The Mist)

Labels: Danny Huston, film, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson, movie trailer, Pete Postlethwaite, Ralph Fiennes, Sam Worthington

Related Reviews:
Steven Spielberg movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Munich (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
ReelViews

Labels: Ben Kingsley, film, Liam Neeson, movie review, Ralph Fiennes, Steven Spielberg

Screenwriter: George Lucas (American Graffiti)
Director: George Lucas (Willow)
Actors: Liam Neeson (Kinsey), Ewan MacGregor (Trainspotting), Natalie Portman (Leon: The Professional), Terence Stamp (The Limey), Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane), and Ian McDiarmid (Sleepy Hollow)

Labels: Ewan McGregor, film, George Lucas, Liam Neeson, movie trailer, Natalie Portman, Samuel L Jackson, Star Wars

Short Review: Lord of the Rings Lite.


There was great concern among Christians when it was announced this film was to being made that Hollywood would water down the Christian allegory in order to fit the entertainment industry's long accepted practice of secularizing all things. Since playing down the Christian elements would not only neuter the message of the story, but also massively change the narrative, there was a great deal of trepidation prior to the details of the production becoming public. This was a reasonable concern given Hollywood’s use of Christianity as a cultural diaper for the last forty years. After all, they even secularized Jesus with the release of of Godspell, you'll notice if you actually force yourself to get to the end that, just like the play, Christ is not resurrected. Here's a hint to everyone, no resurrection - no Christ - that's how it works. When Andrew Adamson (ironic name) was brought on the write/direct many people’s concerns doubled. Will the guy who created the children’s postmodern classic Shrek be able to have a discerning eye for this overtly Christian piece? The answer is thankfully yes.

Adamson’s background in animation comes in handy throughout this film as most of the characters are indeed animated. If you are not familiar with the story, four British children, trapped in a mansion come across a wardrobe, which leads to the strange land of Narnia. There they find that the animals talk and a great war is brewing between absolute good and absolute evil. This is a war, in which, they are destined to be the central figures. The part about talking animals is what has kept this film from being produced for the longest time. The technology has finally caught up to the story and all of the animation is spotless. The animation of Mr. And Mrs. Beaver to Aslan himself is fun to watch.

Despite this brilliant eye candy, the film still lacks a coherent signature design as one finds in Lord of The Rings or The Harry Potter series. Narnia is lessened by the fact that it makes its debut in the shadows of these comparable franchises. This is troubling since it is a solid story with a needed message. C. S. Lewis wasn’t the storyteller J. R. R. Tolkein was or J. K. Rowling is today. For this reason the movie seems to be a little off step. The story and movie are more geared directly to smaller children so the narrative and dialog lacks the intelligence of Tolkien’s grand work and lacks the whimsy of something like Harry Potter. Lewis’ story is a grim one but still manages to keep itself restrained enough to be open to the minds of children. This film follows this path. For the first three-fourths of the film the images and story are mild and simple. To adults it may be a little distracting how assumptive the narrative is at times. The war in Narnia and its participants are pushed bluntly and Adamson presumes we’ll take them at face value. We don’t get to know much of the characters outside of some cursory details. This makes the story go somewhat pale during the down moments when we have to spend time with these people.

What occurs in the final act however changes everything. The war sequences and the revealing of Aslan’s sacrifice to the triumphant conclusion are wonderfully handled. The simplicity of the narrative moves from being somewhat burdensome to being a fantastic tool as the movie lays out the complicated allegory of Aslan as Christ with great ease and conviction. The film manages this important piece strongly (although, I would have been more satisfied with a better production design.)

In the end, Adamson brings Lewis’ Christian allegory alive and more importantly has brought it to a massive audience. Looking beyond my petty concerns, this is a good film that brings to the medium a beautiful and important story. This is a good rendition of the greatest story ever told.



Related Reviews:
Epic movies
Ivan Groznyy I (Ivan the Terrible: Part One) (1944)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)


Other Critic's Reviews:
In Film Australia
Rolling Stone

Labels: Anna Popplewell, CS Lewis, film, Liam Neeson, movie review, Narnia, Tilda Swinton, William Moseley

Labels: Ben Barnes, CS Lewis, family film, Liam Neeson, movie trailer, Narnia