Neil Dudgeon, Jessica Stevenson, Jules Sitruk. Comedy. Written & directed by Garth Jennings.
FILM SYNOPSIS: The story takes place in 1980s Britain, where young Will Proudfoot is raised in isolation among The Brethren, a puritanical religious sect in which music and TV are forbidden. Accidentally, he sees a bootlegged copy of Rambo: First Blood and it blows his imagination wide open. Now, Will sets out to join forces with the seemingly diabolical school bully, Lee Carter, to make their own action epic, devising wildly creative, on-the-fly stunts, all the while hiding out from The Brethren.
PREVIEW REVIEW: Both sensitive and amusing, the film is about friendship and the willingness to put others first. Though it takes a shot at the piousness of some religious folk who put the law before Christ’s love, the film is not antagonistic toward biblical matters. It just states that spiritual devotion is most effective when practiced by caring for others. At least that was my interpretation. I may be honoring the filmmaker more than he deserves.
Alas, the film is peppered with objectionable language, including a disrespectful use of Christ’s name, and mostly by a kid.
Though it is a tenderhearted movie, the misuse of our Savior’s name is just too abundant to be overlooked.
You may wish to try the following DVD alternatives to get the same message:
To Kill a Mockingbird. Horton Foote's winning screenplay of the Harper Lee novel about rural life, justice, honor and bigotry as seen through the eyes of a nine-year-old girl.
Or:
The Sandlot. The new boy in town struggles to become a member of the neighborhood baseball team. PG (a few mild expletives, one graphic scene where the kids get sick after chewing tobacco).
Or:
One Foot In Heaven. A devout minister (Fredric March) and family deal with the community and church life during changing early 1900s America. Fun scene has the good Reverend attending his first movie.
I would like to suggest Millions from 2005 since it is fairly new and that seems to be a prerequisite for some movie viewers. Alas, I can’t. Starting anew after the death of their mother, 9-year-old Anthony is ever practical, while his 7-year-old brother Damian uses imagination, fantasy, and faith to make sense of his confusing world. When a suitcase full of money falls out of the sky at Damian’s feet as he plays near the railroad tracks, it sets the boys on the adventure of a lifetime that leads them to realize that true wealth has nothing to do with money. The little boy believes so strongly in saints that he envisions them and has conversations concerning the directions he should take in life. I see this engaging PG film as morality play but for one scene. In it, Damian visualizes Saint Peter. During their discussion, the ever earthy Peter blasts out with an irreverent use of Christ’s name. So unexpected, it demanded a reaction from the startled audience, one that expressed itself through laughter. The actor portraying Peter continues by applying a humanistic explanation for the feeding of the 5,000. Turns out the miracle was not done by Jesus, but by the giving spirit of the people. It’s a subtle deflection from the godliness of Jesus. The filmmaker got his laugh, but he lost me.
Distributor: Paramount Vantage
Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Shaun Toub and Gwyneth Paltrow. Written by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway. Directed by Jon Favreau.
ILM SYNOPSIS: Paramount Pictures and Marvel Entertainment's big screen adaptation of Marvel's legendary Super Hero Iron Man will launch into theaters on May 2, 2008. Oscar(R) nominee Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark/Iron Man in the story of a billionaire industrialist and genius inventor who is kidnapped and forced to build a devastating weapon. Instead, using his intelligence and ingenuity, Tony builds a high-tech suit of armor and escapes captivity. When he uncovers a nefarious plot with global implications, he dons his powerful armor and vows to protect the world as Iron Man.
PREVIEW REVIEW: Smart and witty writing (considering the genre), involving direction, perhaps the best special effects I’ve seen, and actors doing what good actors do best, make this one of the best of the Marvel comics screen adaptations. True, the last third becomes top heavy with the standard combativeness we’ve already seen with the Fantastic foursome, the mutating Transformers and the go-go Power Rangers, but by then Mr. Downey and his supporting players have cast their spell, drawing us into a mesmerizing action adventure that’s also a morality tale.
I do have a concern. While it has a comic book feel, the amount of visceral violence gained the film a PG-13 rating. Because of the amount of violent imagery already aimed at kids by the world’s entertainment community, I question this film’s suitability for younger moviegoers. Indeed, when our protagonist found himself in a bad way, a traumatized child (way too young for such a movie) started screaming.
I was also disappointed, but not surprised, by the inclusion of several obscenities and even a couple of profane uses of God’s name. Is that language now appearing in the action comic books?
Distributor: Paramount Pictures and Marvel Entertainment
Richard Jenkins, Hiam Abbass, Haaz Sleiman , Danai Gurira. Comedy/drama. Written and Directed by Tom McCarthy.
FILM SYNOPSIS: A college professor becomes embroiled in the lives of a young immigrant couple living in New York City and stumbles into an unexpected romance as a result. As these strangers struggle to deal with their individual lives in a changed world, their shared humanity is revealed in awkward, humorous and dramatic ways.
PREVIEW REVIEW: Here’s what I loved about this film. It was a gentle character study about a man shut off from the world suddenly opening up to those around him. And the film points out that different nationalities can actually complement one another. That’s not a conservative or liberal consensus. Or shouldn’t be. We are like pieces of a puzzle designed to work together in order to make a living, breathing picture. I know, it sounds like I’m going to start handing out daises. But when we get past the barriers of politics we start coming together, appreciating the gifts God has given all of us.
The film is well cast down to the smallest roles, the direction seamless and though the pacing will be slow to those more accustomed to action thrillers than dramatic character studies, still there is a rhythm and a rhyme to the story that maintains an interest.
Alas, though I understand the filmmaker’s agenda – to tell a personal story that will aid in changing our immigration system - still it’s a pretty one-sided argument. We see a good man deported, separated from his family and his dreams of a better life here in the U.S. The filmmaker may be asking us to examine alternatives, or perhaps he’s just condemning us. But it must not be forgotten that while this is a good man, he is here illegally.
I’m always amazed at which laws people will uphold and which they will ignore. I don’t consider myself an authority on immigration, but shouldn’t laws be changed rather than just ignored. That said, at least this filmmaker is opening the question to debate. Debate is good. True art makes you think and feel. This film does both.
Distributor: Overture Films
John Cho, Kal Penn. Comedy. Written & directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg – and maybe Jack Daniels.
FILM SYNOPSIS: The same morning that Harold and Kumar eat at White Castle, Harold learns that Maria, the girl he lusts after, has set off for Amsterdam. The pair decide to pursue her so Harold can proclaim his love. However, an overzealous airline passenger mistakes Kumar for a terrorist, and the plane is diverted as the duo get stuck in a case of mistaken identity.
PREVIEW REVIEW: I’m trying to find something new to say about this recent adolescent comedy. Let’s see, I’ve already used the following words and phrases to describe today’s direction in film comedy: crude, vulgar, exploitive, cheap, easy, irreverent, offensive, profane, stupid, inane and frat-mindedly base. Now, I could open my Roget’s Thesaurus, but I feel nearly as lazy as the filmmakers, so let’s just use the same words to describe this attempt at cashing in on slacker/stoner humor.
Though I hadn’t seen the first film, I was aware that it was about stoners. And knowing the sensibilities of today’s comic filmmakers, I knew this sequel wouldn’t be filled with the wit and wisdom of Noel Coward. But I had noooooo idea what I was getting myself into.
It’s not that there aren’t some laughs, or that the two stars don’t have comic chops. It’s just that since the main moments that brought laughter from the audience weren’t generated from scatological and anatomical activities, why base the entire film around them? Those visuals and vocals seemed to just bring moans or startled reactions (“I can’t believe I just saw that”). Again, I ask, why rely so heavily upon gross-out gags? Because there is an audience for such amusement. While most “stoner” movies don’t do all that well at the box office, they often generate big revenue once put on DVD. Could this possibly be because real-life stoners enjoy these movies best when they themselves are home alone, partaking of forbidden substances? Nah, no one would do that. That would be illegal.
Please read the attached reasons for the rating. Though I normally attempt to be discreet with my content descriptions, I’ll be rather graphic here in order to let you understand just how far these filmmakers are willing to push the envelope of bad taste.
Though my description of the film’s nudity may be enticing to adolescents (of all ages) I would hope they would keep this in mind. The media is bombarding you with sexual images. Indeed, it’s difficult to avoid all the sexual imagery in our culture. Aren’t you feeling manipulated by moviemakers? You should be. These films aim at our baser instincts. They are ultimately unfulfilling and merely aid in setting back social behavior. Keep in mind, whenever we try to avoid temptations and self-gratification at the expense of others, it honors God, the opposite sex and ultimately that one special person destined for your life. I know, that sounds corny. What’s right often does.
Distributor: Warner Bros
FILM SYNOPSIS: This investigative documentary probes the snubbing of scientists and teachers who teach the theory of intelligent design. Ben Stein, who’s had an eclectic career ranging from presidential speech writer to droning actor (he played the blaze teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), hosts this outing of those determined to prevent the creationist hypothesis. Mr. Stein interviews respected scientists and teachers who have lost their jobs and/or careers because of their desire just to be open to ideas other than evolution.
PREVIEW REVIEW: With touches of cynical humor and moments of thoughtful reasoning, the filmmakers take on a system that has long since said that there is no place for the concept of intelligent design outside Sunday morning worship. Indeed, in the halls of prejudicial academia, spiritual matters have become archaic. And when someone has the nerve to test the theory that man came from fish in the sea or apes in the trees or a big cosmic bang, not only are they ridiculed by many in the field of science, they are also ridiculed by the media (hence the overwhelming negative reviews from the secular press).
What an eye opener this has been. Movie critics, so proud of their liberal and objective stances, are clearly dominated by personal views and agendas. After reading some of the poisoned-pen smears of this film by many of my colleagues in criticism, I have come to the conclusion that they demand not only separation of church from state, but of church from anything. Their so-called open-mindedness only extends so far as to the boundaries of their own beliefs.
I must point out that there are exceptions to that previous statement. I know people in the press who are positive role models for the term “liberal,” in that they debate, but also listen to the views of others. They are, however, few and far between.
Admittedly, the film has an agenda. It mocks the narrowness of man’s all-knowing, all-seeing intellect conceit. Stein and his team use any means to make cartoons of evolutionists, including the actual use of cartoons to do it. Stein attacks them much the way Michael Moore does everyone else. Of course, Moore’s tactics are generally accepted as filmmaking tools to make an entertaining point. Stein’s, however, are mocked as amusement and denounced as disingenuous and deceitful.
The makers of Expelled are using the very stratagem documentarians have used to puncture Detroit, McDonald’s and church hierarchies. Ah, the evolutionary worm turns. The film is thought-provoking, amusing and scary because it points out that our nation’s schools, which once embraced a reverence for God and spiritual concepts, are now manned by those who don’t.
Distributor: Premise