Short Review: It’s as bombastic as it is ill conceived, which is fancy way of saying its loud and stupid.



John Cusack is in his forties and is still playing half-man schlubs who can’t manage relationships. His character Jackson Curtis is broken down, broken-hearted and just plain broke. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) has left him. His kids loathe his mere presence. In a way, this film is like seeing Better Off Dead as done by Michael Bay.

This is a horrendous film.

Awful.

Lousy.

Thankfully it is also a bloated disaster movie so it doesn’t really matter. All the film has to do is flash lights to distract from its limping plot in order to be successful. The only reason to see this film is to watch the end of the world in glorious high definition. Writer/Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, 10,000 B.C.) promises to deliver the apocalypse with as few words as possible. He delivers on his promise.

What I found amazing is that Emmerich still bothers trying to shoehorn relationship issues into the end of days. At one point Jackson and Kate have a quiet moment together. She complains that Jackson spent too much time working and not enough time with his family. They literally just watched billions of people perish, the totality of human civilization has been destroyed and she is still nagging at the poor sap. I guess we can see why things didn't work out them.

The problem with trying to pull off character development in a film like this is that once you show the USS John F. Kennedy on a tsunami wave crashing into the White House and killing the President, it's a little much to ask us to care about the gripes from John Cusack’s ex-wife.

If you are only interested in seeing crashing buildings, ridiculous plot contrivances and perilous escapes, this will be a good pick. If you have the tendency to pause while watching movies and consider how reality actually works, you will probably still enjoy it because it’s dang funny from that angle.

I laughed constantly through the film. Here is a moment which sums up the film for me. Jackson is driving a limo through Los Angeles as the city is literally falling to pieces. A building crashes down in front of him. He jumps the limo into the side of the falling building, drives the car across a floor, speeding through a business office, crashes out of a window and manages to land safely on the highway on the other side. If you can handle that level of dumb, knock yourself out.


Worldview: I was struck by Emmerich's treatment of faith. Every once in a while someone would casually mention that “its time to start praying”. Other than these passing nods to the notion that some people may or may not possibly consider asking for mercy from something that maybe perhaps might be something kinda like a God or something or who knows what, there is a remarkable absence of any real faith. The President begins to quote scripture at one point, but he is cut off before he finishes. The world is ending, billions are dying, and the only references to Jesus Christ are when characters are cursing.

Emmerich is very deliberate in his presentation of religion in this film, particularly when it comes to the destruction of iconic places. Emmerich is given credit for popularizing the destruction of landmarks in action/disaster movies. The White House being blown up in Independence Day started the trend. Destroying the White House, Washington Monument, and other landmarks serves to pervert the “Death of God Image" I’ve discussed before.

In this film, Emmerich takes the Death of God Image and runs with it. He not only shows the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Brazil crumbling, but he stops the movie cold to spend time at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholics are crowded outside of Saint Peter’s Cathedral as the Pope looks down on them from the balcony. Inside, a collection of cardinals huddle in a circle praying. As the room begins to shake they look upward to see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (apparently its been moved). The ceiling cracks and splits, severing the famous fingers of God and Adam. Suddenly, the Saint Peter’s Basilica plops over on its side and rolls over all of the collected Catholics killing the faithful like a big rolling pin made out of cosmic irony.

Beyond the obvious “imagine if they did this to any other group” argument, I need to point out that Emmerich goes out of his way to avoid showing large groups of people in this film. All of L.A. is destroyed but we only witness a few dozen actual deaths. The crowds that are killed on screen are shown from vast distances or are represented by focusing tightly on the fearful face of a known character.

The deaths at the Vatican are the only crowd shown killed in a specific, almost devious way. This is not by accident. Emmerich himself admits that the destruction of religious locations is intentional – in particular his choice in showing Christians getting it.


When asked about destroying Christ the Redeemer Emmerich explains,

Cautions: There's death and destruction. There's some foul language and a few instances of people taking Christ's name in vain. Beyond these infractions, there's not too much that is worth being cautioned over (regarding the content).



Once you see the film read what follows:

Two items:

Congratulations! The good news: you’ve been cast in a huge Hollywood blockbuster. The bad news: Your character arc is that you learn to stop peeing the bed at night.

So, the world’s elite are given the chance to buy a seat on the arks. In the end the world leaders come together to allow some stranded folk into their ships. This is used to show how we maintain our humanity. Yeah, about that, the stranded people are also rich elites who also bought their way onto the arks. So, other than some Chinese slaves, the survivors of humanity are all billionaires. Each have drained their resources from the rest of the world so they could comfortably survive the hell on Earth they left for everyone else. The worst of humanity gets to live. Nice message.


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

Labels: Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, disaster movie, film, John Cusack, McMovie, movie review, Oliver Platt, Roland Emmerich, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson

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 is a well done movie. It is sharply written with fully drawn characters and some memorable dialog. One of the characters is one of the most important public figures in 20th Century America, Richard Nixon. It is based in real events and is the adaptation of a successful play. The performances have been lauded by critics, and I concur that they are praiseworthy.

One problem.

It never gets past the “who cares?” moment.

What do we care? David Frost, a smarmy Australian entertainer/television host lands a series of interviews with Richard Nixon following Nixon’s resignation from the Presidency. The two men verbally and psychologically duel throughout the interviews (both on and off the record). In the end, Frost gets Nixon to admit that his approach to the presidency was overreaching and criminal.

And?

We all already know this.

The man was about to be impeached. We know his thoughts on the power of the Presidency were out of whack with reality.

A film should have a purpose. A film without purpose is little more than a entrancing, flashing lights on a wall. This movie is devoid of a moving point. Its not a deep character study given that we learn nothing new about the characters. Its not a political statement since it is surprisingly without an axe to grind - a remarkable feat in the age of BDS. I couldn’t find any reason for this film to exist other than for the sake of just existing.

Again, it is a aptly made film and the performances are good. I just can’t justify telling people its worth sitting through.




Related Reviews:
Presidential movies
Death of a President (2006)
Thirteen Days (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Dave
Apollo Movie Guide

Labels: film, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon, Michael Sheen, movie review, Oliver Platt, Ron Howard, Sam Rockwell

Short Review: It’s as bombastic as it is ill conceived, which is fancy way of saying its loud and stupid.



John Cusack is in his forties and is still playing half-man schlubs who can’t manage relationships. His character Jackson Curtis is broken down, broken-hearted and just plain broke. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) has left him. His kids loathe his mere presence. In a way, this film is like seeing Better Off Dead as done by Michael Bay.

This is a horrendous film.

Awful.

Lousy.

Thankfully it is also a bloated disaster movie so it doesn’t really matter. All the film has to do is flash lights to distract from its limping plot in order to be successful. The only reason to see this film is to watch the end of the world in glorious high definition. Writer/Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, 10,000 B.C.) promises to deliver the apocalypse with as few words as possible. He delivers on his promise.

What I found amazing is that Emmerich still bothers trying to shoehorn relationship issues into the end of days. At one point Jackson and Kate have a quiet moment together. She complains that Jackson spent too much time working and not enough time with his family. They literally just watched billions of people perish, the totality of human civilization has been destroyed and she is still nagging at the poor sap. I guess we can see why things didn't work out them.

The problem with trying to pull off character development in a film like this is that once you show the USS John F. Kennedy on a tsunami wave crashing into the White House and killing the President, it's a little much to ask us to care about the gripes from John Cusack’s ex-wife.

If you are only interested in seeing crashing buildings, ridiculous plot contrivances and perilous escapes, this will be a good pick. If you have the tendency to pause while watching movies and consider how reality actually works, you will probably still enjoy it because it’s dang funny from that angle.

I laughed constantly through the film. Here is a moment which sums up the film for me. Jackson is driving a limo through Los Angeles as the city is literally falling to pieces. A building crashes down in front of him. He jumps the limo into the side of the falling building, drives the car across a floor, speeding through a business office, crashes out of a window and manages to land safely on the highway on the other side. If you can handle that level of dumb, knock yourself out.


Worldview: I was struck by Emmerich's treatment of faith. Every once in a while someone would casually mention that “its time to start praying”. Other than these passing nods to the notion that some people may or may not possibly consider asking for mercy from something that maybe perhaps might be something kinda like a God or something or who knows what, there is a remarkable absence of any real faith. The President begins to quote scripture at one point, but he is cut off before he finishes. The world is ending, billions are dying, and the only references to Jesus Christ are when characters are cursing.

Emmerich is very deliberate in his presentation of religion in this film, particularly when it comes to the destruction of iconic places. Emmerich is given credit for popularizing the destruction of landmarks in action/disaster movies. The White House being blown up in Independence Day started the trend. Destroying the White House, Washington Monument, and other landmarks serves to pervert the “Death of God Image" I’ve discussed before.

In this film, Emmerich takes the Death of God Image and runs with it. He not only shows the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Brazil crumbling, but he stops the movie cold to spend time at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholics are crowded outside of Saint Peter’s Cathedral as the Pope looks down on them from the balcony. Inside, a collection of cardinals huddle in a circle praying. As the room begins to shake they look upward to see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (apparently its been moved). The ceiling cracks and splits, severing the famous fingers of God and Adam. Suddenly, the Saint Peter’s Basilica plops over on its side and rolls over all of the collected Catholics killing the faithful like a big rolling pin made out of cosmic irony.

Beyond the obvious “imagine if they did this to any other group” argument, I need to point out that Emmerich goes out of his way to avoid showing large groups of people in this film. All of L.A. is destroyed but we only witness a few dozen actual deaths. The crowds that are killed on screen are shown from vast distances or are represented by focusing tightly on the fearful face of a known character.

The deaths at the Vatican are the only crowd shown killed in a specific, almost devious way. This is not by accident. Emmerich himself admits that the destruction of religious locations is intentional – in particular his choice in showing Christians getting it.


When asked about destroying Christ the Redeemer Emmerich explains,

Cautions: There's death and destruction. There's some foul language and a few instances of people taking Christ's name in vain. Beyond these infractions, there's not too much that is worth being cautioned over (regarding the content).




Once you see the film read what follows:

Two items:

Congratulations! The Good News: you’ve been cast in a huge Hollywood blockbuster. The Bad News: Your character arc is that you learn to stop peeing the bed at night.

So, the world’s elite are given the chance to buy a seat on the arks. In the end the world leaders come together to allow some stranded folk into their ships. This is used to show how we maintain our humanity. Yeah, about that, the stranded people are also rich elites who also bought their way onto the arks. So, other than some Chinese slaves, the survivors of humanity are all billionaires who drained their resources from the rest of the world so they could comfortably survive the hell on Earth they left for everyone else. The worst of humanity gets to live. Nice message.

Labels: Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, disaster movie, film, John Cusack, McMovie, movie review, Oliver Platt, Roland Emmerich, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson

Screenwriter: Peter Morgan (The Queen)
Director: Ron Howard (The Da Vinci Code)
Actors: Kevin Bacon (Hollow Man), Sam Rockwell (Matchstick Men), Frank Langella (Superman Returns), Patty McCormack (Shallow Ground), Michael Sheen (Blood Diamond), and Oliver Platt (Casanova)

Labels: film, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon, movie trailer, Oliver Platt, Ron Howard, Sam Rockwell