Short Review: It’s like a finely crafted yacht that is completely rudderless.


If you can manage to force yourself through the seemingly endless opening credit sequence, you may find a movie you will enjoy. The opening credits drag along over images of sloped shouldered, heavy-eyed workers shuffling to work. This is an obvious nod to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Except the opening sequence goes on longer than Fritz Lang’s masterpiece. Seriously, the opening sequence is so long it has its own table of contents on the DVD.

The film itself is at once very well done, but also without direction or focus. Writer/Director John Patrick Shanley has a flair for character and dialog. He particularly has crafted some brilliant minor characters to populate his world in this movie. From the luggage salesman to Joe’s limo driver Marhsall, Shanley shows that he is a gifted writer. The issue is that Shanley doesn't expend any of his talent on developing the main character Joe. It is clear that Joe is to be a hollow shell of a man. Hollow shells aren’t great leads.

Usually Tom Hanks is vibrant, but here he seems to sleepwalk through his role as Joe. Giving Hanks this role is like having a professional chef prepare toast. The other actors in the film, Meg Ryan (who manages three roles), Dan Hedaya and Lloyd Bridges (amongst others) all dig into their rich roles. Hanks appears lost.

The story itself is an existentialist yarn without any serious advice or wisdom to offer in the end. Perhaps that is why the main character is so thin. Without a clear mission or direction, there is nothing driving Joe. The opinion of the film seems to be that whatever happens, happens – give yourself to the doom that awaits you and see if you can scratch out some enjoyment on the way down. Well, if nothing really matters, then neither does this film.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Toy Story (1995)


Other Critic's Reviews:
J&C'S Movie Reviews
eFilmCritic



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

Labels: Amanda Plummer, Dan Hedaya, film, Lloyd Bridges, Meg Ryan, movie review, Ossie Davis, Robert Stack, Tom Hanks

Short Review: If you ignore the lack of humor, originality or actual content, you will probably enjoy this, at least for a while.



This is content-free movie making. There is nothing at the heart of this essentially unnecessary sequel to Toy Story. It is a series of perils and little else. Woody, Buzz Lightyear and Jesse along with their cadre of other old toys have been discarded for years as their owner Andy has grown up. Andy is now moving out to college and his toys have been donated to a daycare center.


The daycare center is run by a cruel teddy bear named Lotso. Lotso condemns the new arrivals to live in the toddler's room where the children play too rough and torment their toys. Woody who gets separated from the others comes to the rescue of his friends. This leads to him sneaking around, chase sequences and other visually grabbing moments. What is missing is a point. There is plenty that happens throughout the movie but very little that has any real value other than just sitting there and taking it in.

Yes, I understand I'm talking about a movie with talking toys.

Even kids movies have a point and can be told with proper, solid stories. The original Toy Story had some depth, not much, but enough. Woody faced being replaced, forgotten in his own time. The juxtaposition between the old-fashioned (Woody) and the new and improved (Buzz Lightyear) was a strong place from which to write. There were issues regarding one's purpose, friendship and judging others.


In this outing, there are fleeting moments where content could have been inserted but those moments remained empty. Instead we are given toys that shout about their desire not to be thrown out. The loud protests cover the fact that there is nothing really going on in the characters.

I can recommend this film, but not strongly. It is enjoyable, the characters are still likable and the filmmakers have some inventiveness. My recommendation in place, I will say that you shouldn't expect to be blown away. This is not a great movie. It's barely a good one. It is lukewarm, but in a summer of dead cold productions - lukewarm is pretty good.


Worldview:

Given that these are talking toys, the theological musings are kept to a minimum. Woody does commit himself to his duty to Andy. He knows his purpose in life and sticks to the plan, even when everything looks hopeless. He is right to do so.

There are a couple of interesting moments beyond Woody's denial of his self-interest. The display of Ken, I found to be interesting. Ken, Barbie's accessory, is shown to be a sissy-boy who likes clothes, fancy things and ascots. He is not a man's man. This fact is routinely exploited for laughs. In our politically correct society, this mockery is not common, and in my book - very welcome. They actually make an appropriate cross-dressing joke (that sounds worse than it is). This is a good thing. Anything that reinforces the fact of gender roles in our debased society is a good thing.


The other item I noted is the overall anti-authoritarian slant of the storyline. The daycare is lorded over by Lotso, a thuggish teddy bear. The toys fight to escape his clutches. The toys loathe being controlled and long to live free to be themselves, to fulfill their passion to be useful (i.e. be played with). This is a nice message supporting the idea that we have a point in life beyond being tools for the State. We have a purpose and are happiest when we spend our existence exploring that reason for being.

One final note in this section, the Lotso character plays differently today than he would have just three years ago. After the Bush-era, it is odd to have an authoritarian figure on screen without some clunky reference to Bush/Cheny. I found myself waiting for that political boot to drop - it never did. My flinching, waiting to be hit with an agenda, reminded me of how ingrained the politics of filmmakers have gotten into their works. Maybe since a liberal is in office, perhaps we can finally relax and enjoy entertainers getting back to entertaining, at least until election season kicks in again.

Cautions:

This is Pixar so there is no critical cautions for parents. I will say that there are a few moments of deep peril that may be a bit much for the younger and/or more sensitive kids. There is also a scary monkey - he freaked out my six-year-old.




Related Reviews:
Pixar movies
Cars (2006)
The Incredibles (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Christianity Today
The Film Reel


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

Labels: animated, film, Joan Cusack, Michael Keaton, movie review, Ned Beatty, Pixar, Tim Allen, Tom Hanks

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

Labels: animated, film, Michael Keaton, movie trailer, Tim Allen, Tom Hanks

It's National Treasure in the Vatican. Or is National Treasure, Angels and Demons taking place in Washington DC? Either way...

For those who were all whipped up over the blasphemy of The Da Vinci Code, you have little to complain about with this production. With this prequel, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is brought into the Vatican to investigate to thwart a possible terrorist attack involving the Illuminati.

Like The Da Vinci Code, director Ron Howard, who normally is a very strong film maker (watch the completely under-rated Cinderella Man to see his best work) but he is hindered by his source material. This is a strained film that can't quite make itself work in an organic fashion. I never lost the feeling I was watching a movie, that I was being manipulated and pushed from scene to scene.

Unlike The Da Vinci Code, this production is watchable and not unbearably boring. The conspiracy at the heart of the narrative at least makes some sense in the context of the story and even the absurd conclusion works if one doesn't think about it.

Hanks has little to do and pretty much replicates his previous performance. He is a master actor, one of the great communicators known in Western Civilization, but here he is left ignoring his talents and simply playing out typical Hollywood scenes of peril. It is like watching a young Michael Jordan playing a game of horse.

If this is the kind of film that sparks your interest, you may like it. For the Catholic readers, there is still plenty here that will annoy you, but most likely it won't offend (at least not deeply). This isn't an attack on your faith, it just uses your religion for a while and then goes away.

In the end, I can't recommend this film because I am sensitive to the continued attack on the Catholic faith. I am not a Catholic, but I am a Christian. Any production that reduces one of us reduces all of us. Even if we set aside the casual use of the Catholic faith for cheap thrills, the dismissive use of the Illuminati still gives me pause. I know a counselor who has personally deprogrammed former members of the real Illuminati and this film underplays the organizations real life dangers. The way this film portrays the evil organization is no different than if they showed Nazis as being really committed socialists. This is serious stuff Howard is messing with and his lack of care with this element is troubling to say the least.




Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Big (1988)
The Terminal (2005)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Need Coffee
ReelViews

Labels: Armin Mueller-Stahl, Ewan McGregor, film, movie review, Stellan Skarsgård, Tom Hanks

Because there's so many unanswered questions from the first two.




Screenwriter: Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine)
Director: Lee Unkrich (Finding Nemo)
Actors: Tom Hanks (The Da Vinci Code), Tim Allen (Redbelt), Michael Keaton (White Noise), Don Rickles (Dirty Work) and John Ratzenberger (Cars)

Labels: animated, Don Rickles, film, John Ratzenberger, Michael Keaton, movie trailer, Pixar, Tim Allen, Tom Hanks

A smart update to the classic Shop Around the Corner. Unlike the original, this film sports an attractive and talented lead female. Tom Hanks stars as Joe Fox, the owner of a corporate book store that has moved into a Seattle neighborhood, and threatens the livelihood of local bookstore owner Kathleen Kelly, portrayed by Meg Ryan. Hanks and Ryan make for a great screen couple and have fantastic chemistry. Their joint charisma combined with Nora Ephron’s fun script makes for a wonderfully enjoyable movie. One of the three great Meg Ryan chick flicks (When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle are the others) this film displays her charms to full effect. She is perfectly cast in this film and couldn’t find a better counterpart than Hanks. This is one of those films that, even if you’re a guy who hates chick flicks, you’ll still find yourself hoping the two will get together. Coming from a bitter curmudgeon like me, that’s saying something.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Big (1988)
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Anchorage Press
Hollywood Jesus

Labels: chick flick, film, Meg Ryan, movie review, Tom Hanks

I know of a good number of people who really like this movie. I don't share their appreciation. I found this to be a plodding, unimpressive bore. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays Frank Abagnale Jr, a brilliant con man who has knack for impersonation. As his stunts increase he gets the attention of the FBI and Agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks). Directed by Spielberg, this is the third in the line of less than stellar efforts he has put out since the turn of the century.


Related Reviews:
Steven Spielberg movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
War of the Worlds (2005)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Flick Filosopher
3 Black Chicks Review

Labels: film, Leonardo DiCaprio, movie review, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks

Screenwriters: David Koepp (Spider-man) and Akiva Goldsman (The Da Vinci Code)
Director: Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon)
Actors: Tom Hanks (The Green Mile), Ayelet Zurer (Vantage Point), Ewan McGregor (Miss Potter) and Stellan Skarsgård (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End)

Labels: Ayelet Zurer, Ewan McGregor, film, movie trailer, Stellan Skarsgård, Tom Hanks

This will probably be a good film but this trailer absolutely stinks. Tell me, what is the draw? Malkovich acts like a celeb goof - looky there's that annoying Blane guy, and now Conan...and Colin Hanks looks upset - hey, look there's Tom Hanks' head...wait, its gone. The trailer is done? Wha?



Screenwriters: Sean McGinly
Director: Sean McGinly
Actors: Colin Hanks (Orange County), Emily Blunt (Charlie Wilson's War), Griffin Dunne (Amazon Women on the Moon), Tom Hanks (The Green Mile) and John Malkovich (In the Line of Fire)

Labels: Colin Hanks, film, John Malkovich, movie trailer, Tom Hanks

Maybe they should also advertise that you'll have plenty of choices of seats at the theater as a selling point.

The team that brought you the gibbering mess that was The Da Vinci Code is back to bore you some more. The problem with this trailer is that many non-Catholics aren't going to understand the relevance of the smoke and probably couldn't place the location, let alone define the Illuminati. Effectively, the trailer simply says, hey it's dark and we're going to show something creepy.

Its possible this is the Dan Brown adaptation that will translate to the screen. Personally, I doubt it, but I've been wrong before. I'm willing to bet this will be The Da Vinci Code with a little more pepper in its step but not a great work. Take a look, watch the teaser below and let me know what you think.





Screenwriter: Akiva Goldsman (I am Legend)
Director: Ron Howard (Cinderella Man)
Actors: Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan), Ayelet Zurer (Vantage Point), Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting) and Stellan Skarsgård (Beowulf & Grendel)

Labels: Ewan McGregor, movie trailer, Ron Howard, Stellan Skarsgård, Tom Hanks

This is a surprisingly poor trailer. It offers no tension, no conflict that draws the audience through the door and it exposes key plot points that would ruin the movie when seen. Throw in the 30 minute run time and you have a terrible, terrible trailer.








Screenwriter: Eric Roth (Munich)
Director: Robert Zemeckis (The Polar Express)
Actors: Tom Hanks (The Terminal), Robin Wright Penn (The Princess Bride), Gary Sinise (Of Mice and Men) and Sally Field (Steel Magnolias)

Labels: film, Gary Sinise, movie trailer, Sally Field, Tom Hanks

Lighthearted and fluffy, this upbeat movie has dated well. Tom Hanks was a known commodity prior to this movie but his endearing performance as a twelve-year-old who is magically transformed into the body of a man, made people take a closer look. This was one of the more effective star vehicles ever made. The film was well received and set the stage for the most successful acting careers in Hollywood history.

The movie itself is well handled by director Penny Marshall. It is lightweight and intended to be a product with mass appeal. It serves this function. If you're looking for a comfortable McMovie it's sometimes good to go back to older films like this one - you'll get a good movie that is probably as good as you remember.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel.com
PopMatters

Labels: Elizabeth Perkins, film, movie review, Tom Hanks

This film answers the question "how sicked out will I get if I ever see Tom Hanks' naked buttocks". There's gratuitous nudity and then there's a middle aged man pointing his middle aged bum at the camera for no good reason. Hey Tom, it didn't go to moving the plot along, you didn't need to do it. Save it for your wife, she married you, let her live with the image. Let the rest of us alone.

If you can struggle past seeing Hanks' wrinkled, pale mud flaps, you will find a fantastic movie. Hanks is perfectly cast as Good Time Charlie Wilson. Wilson, a hard-living congressman, was responsible for pushing the CIA's largest covert operation giving support to Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting against the Soviets and their puppets in the Communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Hanks is perfect for the role because of his ability to charm. This is critical for the role because under any criteria, Wilson is bad guy. He's a drinker, womanizing hog, living off the teat of his constituents. Hanks is able to overwhelm the negatives and provide us with a charismatic lead we can get behind.

Supporting Hanks is Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, a CIA agent who guides Wilson through the political and special ops minefields of building a war against the Soviets via Afghanistan. Hoffman, like Hanks, is a reliable talent who tackles even his minor scenes with zeal. The two work together wonderfully as does most of the rest of the cast. The only fault is in Julia Robert's performance. She is a performer, a personality, not an actress and her inability to give her performance any depth is striking when she's put up against Hanks and Hoffman. Her numerous scenes feel like an extended cameo more than a support role.

Smartly, the script by Aaron Sorkin (The American President) is light on overt agenda. In this day and age it is important to note when someone (particularly someone like Sorkin) avoids turning their work into some cheap kick in the shins to their political opposition. The story is played as straight as possible and avoids the barbs of today's conflicts. Obviously, this film was made in reaction to the events on and after 9/11, but those connections are left as being inherent and not constantly hammered like one may expect. This gives the film a comfortable appeal for both sides of the aisle. We can watch the film with 20/20 hindsight and are left to consider the implications on our own.

This is a solid piece of storytelling and worth at least one viewing. If you haven't seen it, check it out, seeing Hanks and Hoffman together is worth the price of admission.


Cautions: Like swearing? Like swearing done very effectively? If so, this movie is for you. Tons of cursing permeate this movie. To be fair, the swearing is a natural byproduct of the characters, and it is cleverly peppered in the script. This said, some audience members may be offended. If the swearing disturbs you then I won't bother going into the nudity, sexual discussions and other adult content that makes up a majority of the narrative.


Worldview: Charlie Wilson defies his personality and his history to push for a covert war that served to give the Soviets a well deserved kick in their collectivist rumps. This covert war also seeded the Islamofacist movement we're battling today. Watching Wilson lopping the head off the foreign policy hydra seems to show the futility of rising above our human nature and doing "the right thing". Despite the claims of morons everywhere, people aren't inherently good - we're bad. Humans do the darnedest things and when I say "darnedest" I mean the most vile and despicable acts of craven self-interest. When we choose to do good (and I selected the word "choose" intentionally), when its not done to satisfy personal ends, we are casting aside our natures and attempting to live beyond ourselves. We know ultimately everything we do in this life will pass and most things we set right will eventually turn wrong once again. The point here is to keep doing what is right, what is good. For when we do good, we elevate ourselves to be more like God. Trying to be more like God may be as futile as standing on your tiptoes in an effort to be as tall as the Sears Tower, but every little bit does count. Our machinations are as flawed as we are and doing the right thing is a slippery proposition because the facts on the ground tend to change over time. Even knowing our good may spoil (as they did in this case), we are still asked to do our best. God knows we are faulty, broken by sin. This is why he has plans for us to be perfected. Before the mending comes our task is to fight our impulses and do as much good as we can, while we can.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galatians 6:9

For you non-believers, think of it this way, if there's no afterlife, then all that will remain of you is the fleeting memory by those near you. You will be remembered for your actions. Your acts today decide your obituary tomorrow. Will the summation of your life be positive or negative? Charlie Wilson may have been a bad man but it is his good acts that will really define him. Even a bad man who despite himself does the right thing is preferable to good men are virtuous but who do nothing.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Monsters and Critics
Film Critics United

Labels: film, Julia Roberts, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks

Short Review: This thing is as coherent as Keith Richards reciting Naked Lunch.



One has to assume Tom Hanks made this film as a result of his issues with his father, and his own troubles with incontinence. Is it possible that his partaking in this ill-founded attack on the Christian faith is little more than a cry for help? Of course, difficulty retaining the love and respect of one’s father must be devastating. We can all imagine the incontinence must be deeply unsettling for a grown man. How these personal issues have brought Mr. Hanks to make this film, we cannot say. Personally, I can’t say for certain they actually drove him to make this silly movie. But alas, the question about if his wetting his pants and his loveless relations with his father remains. Are those to items connected? We will never really know, but its worth discussing.*

Let’s put aside the spiteful anti-Christian core of this piece and look at the film itself. Thanks to Ron Howard’s uncharacteristically inept handing of the production, this is the only place we need to look to bury this piece forever. This is a complete mess. The opening act promises some intrigue but quickly sours into a convoluted hash of pseudo-history and bad dialog. The fact that the story gets convoluted isn’t inherently bad, The Usual Suspects is a knot of a film but retains its potency. The difference between this film and others such as The Usual Suspects or 12 Monkeys is that this story is convoluted not because the story is complicated, it is because the story is poorly told.

The piece centers around a series of murders which eventually lead the hero Dr. Robert Langdon (Hanks) to reveal a conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus Christ. As the story goes, Christ rolled around in the hay with Mary Magdalene and had a kid or two.** There’s a vicious group of Catholics here, a gaggle of nasties over there and Hanks with his pompadour and a twiggy French woman are stuck in the middle. The whole deal revolves around trying to find the final resting-place of Magdalene, who is otherwise known as “The Holy Grail”. Actually, her birth cavity is The Holy Grail, the rest of her is apparently just regular ol’ chick. From what I can gather from the foggy plot, the film comes down on the side of turning all of Christendom into Mary Magdalene’s personal crotch cult, which will celebrate her ability to produce the offspring of Jesus. The film points to her as being holy because of their unfounded demand that she was Jesus’ sexual partner while at the same time claiming that said unfounded claims prove that Jesus was not God after all. If having relations denies Jesus his Christ title then how is it that Magdalene is anyone important either? If Jesus is not God then Magdalene is no one more important than the girl selling eyeliner down at your local Wal Mart. With all of the Harvard professors mincing about in the film you’d think one of them would work this out. Then again, Hanks playing one of the aforementioned Harvard professors mispronounces the word “liberry” instead of the accepted “library” (it’s a good thing he didn’t say Nu-clur.) Apparently, we’re not dealing with Harvard’s varsity squad in this film.

The film is long and ultimately pointless. The seething hatred expressed towards the Christian faith is like dropping a turd in an already brimming barf bag. Even if you’re not Christian and don’t mind the clumsy slander forwarded by this film, you’re still stuck with a poorly constructed piece. There is nothing good about this movie. It is both Ron Howard’s and Tom Hank’s worst piece in years and yes I’m including both Turner & Hootch and The Missing. Howard’s direction is episodic and littered with broken pacing. Hanks is almost zombie like as he struggles to find something to do until his character expels another litany of useless facts which may or may not actually be facts. This seems like the work of people with far less experience and talent than those who worked on the production.

For those of you who want to offend Christians, you’ll have to do better. This film, if it weren’t such a huge production, wouldn’t be good enough to be deemed offensive. It’s like having a five year old tell you that they hate you. It’s sad day for those who would spend so much effort to construct something so obtuse and pathetic. Christians who are offended by this, I understand your issue. The fact is we should have pity on those who work so hard to deny the truth. Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t take their crap laying down, but we should have some pity. Fools abound in a world dedicated to man’s designs.


* I do not posses definitive proof that Mr. Hanks involuntarily wets his pants. I cannot say for certain that his relationship with his father was anything but normal. This said, he has made a number of films with absentee fathers and others where his character has some issue with urination. If it is reasonable to look at The Last Supper to support unfounded claims against Christ, why is it so far fetched to look at Hanks films to deduce things about his personal life? After all, Da Vinci wasn’t hanging around in the time of Christ, for our purposes we’re looking at the direct result of Hank’s work.

** Since we’re defiling Christ and making crap up to suit our purposes how about a sequel where Langdon finds Jesus’ DNA in some sap and then takes the results to produce a Jurassic Park populated with the prophets? If you don’t like that, how about sending Marty McFly back in time to keep his ancestral grandmother from dating the young Jesus. Think these are silly? They’re no worse than the fiction puked out by this rabble.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Terminal (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
DarkMatters: The Mind of Matt

Labels: anti-Christian, Dan Brown, film, movie review, Ron Howard, The DaVinci Code, Tom Hanks

Labels: Ed Burns, film, Matt Damon, movie review, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, war, World War II

Labels: film, Matt Damon, movie trailer, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, war, World War II