AVC MPEG4

“I found out that if you wanna know the purpose of a thing, you can’t ask the thing to tell you. A car doesn’t know why it’s a car; only the manufacturer knows what it was meant to do. And I guess that’s the same way it is with God.”

Not Easily Broken was written by a minister, Bishop T.D. Jakes. So you should expect a very spiritual message when you watch this movie. If that’s not your cup of tea, as they say, this really isn’t going to be the film for you. The message is quite clear throughout the film: Life will throw everything it’s got at you. It will try you. It will test you. The movie proposes that only through a spiritual connection with God can you overcome these obstacles. The story uses the example of marriage, but it’s obviously intended to apply to every aspect of life.

In 1951 Robert Wise made the Earth stand still. The United States, in fact the entire planet, was in the middle of a frightening cold war. If you believed the media at the time, we were standing just moments from nuclear annihilation. We were given images of a crazy man’s itching trigger-finger poised over a button. School kids were led in air raid drills that promised protection from this powerful menace by the wooden tops of your desks. The government and private sectors were engaged in witch hunts to smoke out “commie” sympathizers. The fear touched every aspect of our lives. Hollywood was no exception. We confronted these atomic fears with giant creatures and post apocalyptic humans, all mutated by radiation fallout. But Robert Wise delivered a morality tale that offered something far different. It offered hope.

I avoided this remake at the box office. This time it wasn’t just because I was too busy. I love the Wise classic and have long considered it off limits for a remake. When I heard about this one, it brought cringes. I had flashbacks to Steven Spielberg’s total rape of War Of The Worlds. Suddenly the new story wasn’t about hope or an interplanetary federation. It was a Captain Al Gore fantasyland come true. I stayed away.

“Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. Most folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough never carried one, that’s the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins wouldn’t wear one up in Comanche County. I always liked to hear about the old timers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can’t help but compare yourself against old timers. Can’t help but wonder how they would have operated in these times.”

I know I’m getting old myself when a film set in the 1980’s is now considered a period piece. And No Country For Old Men is about as much of a period piece as anything else. More than any part of the story, it’s the mood and the atmosphere of this movie that makes it work on so many levels. Trouble is, no matter how many times you see the dang thing it doesn’t get any easier to categorize what exactly it is. Sure, it is set in the 1980’s, but truth be told it could have just as well been set in the 1880’s. Has West Texas even changed all that much in those 100 years? Watch this movie and you’ll be asking the same question. No Country For Old Men is as much a western as it is anything else. Some call it a “modern western”, but I don’t like that term a whole lot. I mean, when you stop and think about it, what exactly is a “modern western”? I guess you could just as easily answer, No Country For Old Men.

It’s official. I’ve just totally given up on Adam Sandler. Honestly, I haven’t laughed at anything he’s done since the music video for The Lonesome Kicker. How many times can the same absurdity and Romper Room antics work on a film audience? Even in a Walt Disney film that required Sandler to clean up his act a bit, the same sophomoric humor was showing through the threadbare shtick. You just knew there were times he wanted to let loose with some off color remark or obscene gesture. While I was pleased that he gave it the effort, it’s like asking a mute man to talk after you just tied up his hands. There are some moments of genuine warmth with the kids. The guy’s probably a very nice and likable guy, it’s not personal. I’m just tired of the same Happy Gilmore character, just stuck in different situations. Think about it, aren’t they all the same person: Zohan, Gilmore, Little Nicky… The list goes on ad nauseum. A shame, really, because this thing might have had legs with another lead in the role.

Once upon a time in a small hotel, Marty Bronson (Pryce) was trying to run his small family business. Unfortunately, while Marty might have been a great guy, he didn’t have a head for business. He’s forced to sell out to a large hotel chain, owned by Barry Nottingham (Griffiths). The thing that put the deal over the top was Nottingham’s promise to let his son Skeeter (Sandler) run the hotel when he was older. Alas, as I always told my law students in my teaching days: Get it in writing or the promise isn’t worth the paper it’s not printed on. Nottingham does keep Skeeter around, however, as a handyman. Unfortunately he’s treated as a nobody by the entire staff, accept Mickey (Brand). Skeeter’s life is about to change. First, he is given charge of his niece, Bobby (Kesling) and nephew, Patrick (Heit) while his sister, Wendy (Cox) is out of town looking for a job. She’s the local elementary school principal. She’s also a crazy control freak liberal who feeds her kids cakes made out of sawgrass and prohibits such wasteful activities as television watching. Of course, brother Skeeter is going to change all of that. Wendy leaves her friend, Jill (Russell) to help out with the kids and take the “day shift” since she’s also a teacher at their school. But Skeeter’s life might change for the better when he’s given an opportunity to run the new and improved Nottingham Hotel that will replace the current one. If he can come up with a better theme than Nottingham’s future son-in-law and all around kiss up, Kendall (Pearce), he’ll be allowed to finally run the hotel. It doesn’t hurt that he discovers magic in his niece and nephew. It seems that when the three of them engage in some ad lib storytelling (the kids’ books all look like they were written by Captain Al Gore) the stories begin to come true. If he can only manipulate what the kids come up with in his favor, he might just get the big chance he’s been waiting for and even win the girl of his dreams, which he thinks is Nottingham’s Paris Hilton knock-off daughter, Violet (Palmer). Needless to say, it won’t be easy, but Skeeter finds a way to become the hero. Oh, and there’s one of the worst CG creations since Lucas unleashed Jar Jar on an unsuspecting Star Wars fan base. In this case it’s a CG enhanced guinea pig named Bugsy, because of his obnoxiously large eyeballs.

“A dog has no use for fancy cars, or big houses, or designer clothes. A waterlogged stick will do just fine. A dog doesn’t care if you’re rich or poor, clever or dull, smart or dumb. Give ‘em your heart and he’ll give you his. How many people can you say that about? How many people can make you feel rare and pure and special? How many people can make you feel extraordinary?”

In the name of full disclosure, I should probably give you a little background in the circumstances in which I find myself watching and reviewing Marley & Me. If you’re a regular reader of this site and my reviews, you have come to learn that I have a Siberian Husky named Athena. You’ve come to know this because I have, from time to time, allowed her to “review” many of the various dog films that have come my way for this site. You also know that Athena retired recently with her review of Walt Disney’s Bolt. What you don’t know is the reason behind the retirement. About three weeks ago, Athena was diagnosed with bone cancer in her front left shoulder. At 14 years old, there really isn’t much that can be done. She was given anywhere from two weeks to a couple of months, on the outside, to live. We’re able to control any pain she has with medication. In fact, the medication has often given the illusion that she’s getting better. We know she’s not, and that it’s only a matter of time from here on out. It’s a tough situation to be in, as I’m sure any dog owner out there realizes. So far, Athena’s still with us. She’s beaten the lower estimate and continues to avoid too much discomfort. But, the sad reality is that my wife and I are watching our 14 year old companion in her final days. This is not the place you want to be in your life while watching Marley & Me. It might have been the toughest film I’ve had to watch in nearly 10 years of reviewing movies, in one form or another. Enough about my situation.

Slumdog Millionaire has become the latest “must see” Best Picture award winner. While I actually liked the film better than I imagined I would, it’s precisely because the movie is not what it appears, or at times claims to be. If I just took the buzz and advertisement campaign to heart, I would expect a Bollywood picture to the extreme. If you’re not really sure what that term means, I can tell you that this movie will not really clarify anything for you. The traditional Bollywood, Indian made films, feature intense tragedy and love stories. They are usually swimming in song and dance numbers.Looking at the film’s television spot, it would seem that that’s exactly what this movie is. The problem? The song and dance that tends to dominate these spots is not even in the film proper. Rather, the only musical number occurs over the closing credits. Now, while all of this may sound like criticism, it’s actually not. I’ve seen Bollywood productions, and they’re just not up to my tastes. I never fidgeted and yawned so much in my life. That doesn’t mean they’re bad, by any means. I’m sure that there are some that are quite good and entertaining for some people. I’m merely not one of those folks. So, when I discovered that Slumdog Millionaire was going to land on my front door to watch and review, I began to sweat a little bit. How, I asked myself, am I going to handle having to blast the darling of the Hollywood circuit? Am I ready for the barrage of hate emails a negative review is likely to elicit? Fortunately, for us all, this is nothing at all like a true Bollywood film, and try as he might, Danny Boyle just can’t escape his own natural tendencies. In fact, I didn’t fidget or fuss at all. It’s a pretty good film, after all.

A few years ago Who Wants To Be A Millionaire was quite a large phenomenon on American television. The original game show, hosted by Regis Philbin, dominated the primetime airwaves. ABC milked that cash cow for all it was worth, and before long it seemed Millionaire was on just about every night. But, like all fads, the luster wore off, and the show began a steady decline. It survives today, but with lesser known hosts and as a half hour syndication show, usually aired pre-primetime. I’m told the show continues to be a hit abroad, and particularly in India. Whether or not that’s true, I can’t confirm. You do need to accept that premise, however, to buy into the movie. It doesn’t hurt to have at least a passing familiarity with the game’s general format. It looks very much like it did here. A new host and, of course, the currency is in local tender. Still, the spirit of the game we know here exists in India, according to the film.

For first time screen writer Allen Loeb, Things We Lost In The Fire is quite an ambitious script. It relies almost completely on the writing and the performances that can be gotten from the acting leads. There’s really no place to hide in this story for anybody. And while I certainly found several elements of the story forced or contrived, there was an underlining emotion to the whole thing that carried through strong enough for the actors to find some very solid grounding. With that grounding Halle Berry and Benicio Del Toro delivered what should have been award winning performances. Of course, I didn’t see all of the films released in 2007, but I find it hard to believe there were many, if any, better performances. These two had to carry the entire film, all the while manipulating the audience’s emotions, keeping them engaged with very little action or other stimulation. It’s the only thing that kept me watching, that and having to write this review.

Audrey Burke (Berry) has just lost her husband Brian (Duchovny) to an act of violence. She has two young children, and she’s having a very difficult time dealing with her loss. In a rather strange turn of events she turns to Brian’s best friend, Jerry (Del Toro) for some kind of comfort. What makes this so strange is that she, up to this point, hated Jerry and tried to convince Brian to stay away from him. Jerry is a drug addict, whom Audrey believed was just taking from Brian without giving anything back. She resented the fact that Brian was the only person that hadn’t completely given up on Jerry. Now she feels the need to connect with this man. She invites him to the funeral and finds herself fascinated with him. She asks him to stay at her house, and attempts to assist him in kicking his addiction. The two learn to explore their own emotions and deal with their grief. Together they find a way to improve themselves, by sharing this common bond.

His name is Craig, Daniel Craig. Love him or hate him, we have to accept the fact that this blue-eyed rather rugged sculpture of a man is the face of James Bond, now and for the foreseeable future. I’ll admit to being more of a nostalgic Bond fan, and have the image of Sean Connery forever etched into my brain as the quintessential 007. But, it’s not only the drastic change in appearance and demeanor that makes this a hard film for me to embrace. For the first time in the franchise’s 22 film and 35 year history we have a Bond movie that is a direct sequel of the previous one. Certainly characters and elements have carried through from one adventure to the next, and there have been rather strongly linked movies in the run, but never before has one picked up literally an hour from the end of its predecessor. If you haven’t watched Casino Royale, or it’s been a while, you would be best served to acquaint or reacquaint yourself with that film. This one sets a manic pace from the very first frame. There’s no time for even a minimal recap, and Bond’s not in the mood to answer any questions. For the very first time, you need to have seen the film before it in order to be on board for this one. The second departure from the tried and true 007 formula is that this time James Bond is on a mission of vengeance. In Casino Royale’s Bond hooked up with the lovely Vespa, who ultimately betrayed him, but eventually sacrificed her own life for him. Now he pissed, and he’s not waiting around for M or the rest of British Intelligence to get with the program. No question that this type of story is definitely best suited for Craig and his particular take on Bond. But, like it or not, this isn’t your father’s or Ian Fleming’s James Bond.

Just as he was as Casino Royale ended, Bond is on the trail of Mr. White (Christensen). He finally manages to get him and bring him to a British Intelligence safe house, where he and M intend to interrogate him. Both are shocked to hear that there are spies inside of British Intelligence. Bond acts quickly to eliminate an immediate threat to M. Unfortunately, the encounter leaves more questions than it has supplied answers. Bond disobeys orders and heads out to root out the organization behind these plots. Through a case of mistaken identity he hooks up with Camille Montes (Kurylenko). It seems that the rather attractive Camille is on a revenge mission of her own. Together they track the bad guys to the doorstep of industrialist Dominic Greene (Amalric) who has tried on more than one occasion to eliminate the young lady. Greene heads an organization that on its surface appears to be a non-profit organization dedicated to the elimination of global warming. The Al Gore clone delivers speeches and provides the structure for this apparently “clean” organization. But Greene is meeting with General Medrano (Cosio). The general is plotting to take control of his country, and with Greene’s help, he will succeed. Greene seeks certain lands as payment for his help. Greene’s plot is to hold a drought ridden country hostage to his demands once he controls the entire water supply. Of course, it’s up to Bond to stop the plot and restore order to a raging country, while seeking a little payback on the side. Felix and his CIA buddies are token characters here, intended to provide a little question as to Bond’s loyalties. There’s a little bit of Bond going rogue here, but I’m not sure anyone really believes that he has. It’s summed up pretty well when M welcomes him back to the fold, so to speak, and Bond replies, “I never left”.

On January 23, 2002 Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was kidnapped and eventually killed by terrorists while working in Pakistan. A Mighty Heart is based on this true story. The narrative comes from the book by his wife Marianne Pearl. While this is certainly the tragic tale of a murdered reporter, this film is more the story of Marianne and her struggle to locate Pearl in the 10 days from his capture until a video tape surfaced depicting his beheading.

A Mighty Heart begins with us getting to know Daniel Pearl (Futterman), and it quickly takes us through the events leading to his capture. From here on out the theme shifts to the massive investigation to find him. Various American and Pakistani agencies come together to track down every lead in a relentless search. We are cleverly kept bonded to Pearl through well placed flashbacks mostly dealing with intimate moments shared with his wife. Her memories keep Pearl alive for us as they must have for her during those trying times. Of course, if you are at all familiar with these events, and who isn’t, you already know that this film has no happy ending. There aren’t even any satisfying answers left to at least leave you with some feeling of closure. You will leave, perhaps, with more questions than when you started. But there are no easy answers to be found here, and any attempt to provide them would not be honest if the film intends to make an impact as this one does. There are no apologies made, nor should there be for the brutal way the terrorists and their pursuers are portrayed and the culture in which they thrive.

I was very eager to revisit this film now that it has come our way on Blu-ray and high definition. There are issues that I struggled with in my own viewing that I will discuss later in this review. In high definition this film becomes a case study in contradiction. It’s amazing how pretty a thing can be when it really isn’t very pretty at all. We are witness to bad things, but the director chooses to present these things amid a flurry of beauty. It’s a rather striking contrast, made more so on Blu-ray. It actually made for a much more effective experience, even if most of my initial feelings about the film remain unchanged.