Hacksaw Ridge Review

Disclaimer: I'm not a movie critic I'm just some dude on the internet who had an opportunity to see an early screening of Hacksaw Ridge and now I'm giving my thoughts on it (spoiler free).

The synopsis: WWII American Army Medic Desmond T. Doss (Andrew Garfield), who served during the Battle of Okinawa, refuses to kill people and becomes the first Conscientious Objector in American history to be awarded the Medal of Honor.

Hacksaw Ridge is a faith-based war movie, which sounds like a conundrum. And to our main protagonist (Desmond Doss) it absolutely was. The first two-thirds of the film sets up our main character and his fight to not bear arms despite voluntarily enlisting in the army. After being allowed to do so, not without many objections from both his peers and superiors, was "free to run into the hell fire of battle without a single weapon to protect" himself. The final act shows how one man's faithfulness to his conviction can alter the course of history.

The Bad

There are a couple of issues I have with this movie. First, although I believe Doss to have good intentions with his nonviolent stance, I believe the bible makes a clear distinction between warfare as a function of the state to protect the people and murder, which is often driven by the motive of personal vengeance or covetousness. This distinction was briefly addressed in a throwaway line and was never touched upon again. It's possible fleshing out this idea would've distracted from the main point of the story so I understand why it was underdeveloped.

The second issue I had with this film was Doss' faith itself, which is the main thrust of the movie. For us Christians we can understand what a personal relationship with the Lord looks like. We understand following deep conviction. However, for non-believers or people who are not deeply religious I'm not sure they would understand Doss' motive. There was a scene that attempted to reveal his motive for nonviolence but it didn't connect with me. I believe that particular scene could've been replace with a better one to illustrate how Doss developed his conviction. In addition, it would've enhanced Doss' faith if he were to quote a couple of bible passages applicable to arduous situations he found himself in by standing firm on his conviction. There were several scenes where he was simply sitting and reading his bible demonstrating his devotion but that was it. If Doss where to even whisper a couple of verses under his breath to show how he draws strength from his devotion it would've added flesh to his faith (see what I did there 😜). I have suggestions but I don't want to spoil anything.

The Good

Some may take this as a stance of anti-war. It is not. Doss himself said the war was a just cause and wanted to find ways he could serve. It was the bombing at Pearl Harbor that inspired him to enlist. He never came off with an unearned moral sense of superiority but with genuine humility and a deep desire to serve his country. As I mentioned before, Doss' faith is the main thrust of this film and although he is the protagonist his character largely remained static throughout the movie. Doss never wavered (although he had doubts) in his conviction, while they may somewhat be misguided, he remained true to himself in the face of mounting odds and strenuous circumstances. The true marvel of this film is first, Doss' perseverance and persistence to remain faithful to God regardless of the situation or consequences. The second, although Doss' character does not change in development, it's his unwavering commitment to what he believes to be right and the manner by which he lived out that conviction in the most dire of situations that changed everyone around him and ultimately inspired them into battle.

As a Christian, I left with a deeper sense of gratitude for the people who gave their life and limb in the serve of this country so we can be free and enjoy the comforts of our everyday lives. I can never be reminded too often of that sacrifice and never honor it enough when given the opportunity. But what truly sets this movie apart from "just another war movie" is how one man's faith saved countless lives and inspired others to achieve greater acts of valor where otherwise incapable. During basic training nearly Doss' entire unit hated him. They mocked him. They beat him. But when we arrive near the end of the final act with the battle reaching the tipping point every single man within Doss' entire battalion said, "We will not go without you."

It's the dramatic change in others around Doss and the journey to get there, which makes it riveting. I left wondering if I would ever have the fortitude to stand firm in my convictions even in the face of near certain death the same way Doss did. We hope to inspire and advance the cause for Christ but it's so abundantly clear it's not when things are easy but it's when the entire world is crumbling and we stand firm because we stand on a strength outside of ourselves and while standing on that strength is when the world will shout in unison saying, "We want that." It's a strength beyond human comprehension and a peace that surpasses understanding; a strength filled with compassion that prays, "Please Lord, let me get one more."

In short, there are some flaws within the film. But overall it's worth seeing. Go watch an amazing story and let me know what you think.

The Real Steel: Superman Trailer Analysis

I was at work when the new Man of Steel trailer was released and couldn’t wait to get home to watch it. My buddy Bryan called me during my lunch break to tell me about it and wanted my thoughts regarding a couple of other movies. Since I hadn’t seen the new Man of Steel trailer yet, I couldn’t really say anything. Now that I’ve seen it a couple of times (more like 27 times), I do have some thoughts on it.

After watching it for the first time, I was speechless. There are so many elements going on, and it has an entirely different tone from any other Superman movie ever made. I had to just gather my thoughts for a while in order to make them coherent. In short, it’s amazing.

I have tons of thoughts on the potential of the movie and where it could go and how it may lead into the Justice League movie in 2015. I will only mention a few thoughts on the recent Man of Steel trailer.

A Gift and A Curse

Wait! There’s a downside to Superman’s superpowers? It’s rarely ever been explored with a serious and grounded approach, but it seems like this movie will do just that. How does a child with superhuman abilities handle growing up? It’s not like going through puberty. Furthermore, how do parents handle rising a child with superpowers? It’s clear the Kent parents will play a prominent role in this film. The trailer seems to give two hints as to this. We see Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) playing the protective father, telling Clark, “You have to keep this side of yourself a secret.” Later, Martha Kent (Diana Lane) acting as Clark’s anchor in the world, says, “Listen to my voice. Pretend it’s an island. Can you see it?”

Uncertainty and Loneliness

Superman has usually been portrayed as a black and white character. He knows right from wrong and always does what’s right. In Bryan Singer’s 2006 Superman Returns he made a failed attempt to have Superman struggle with Lois Lane’s new relationship. Really? That’s the best you could do? Singer made Lois’ character so angry at Superman it was difficult to like her.

In a new approach, Zack Snyder’s film shows that it hasn’t been always cut and dry for Superman. Imagine how lonely it must’ve been growing up, trying to find an identity, realizing you’re an alien from another plant that blew up, and you’re adopted to boot. How does a person work through all those issues while maintaining a sense of right and wrong?

We have Lift-off

The shot of Superman preparing to take flight with the stirring of the snow and rocks is a nice artistic flourish on how Superman interacts with the environment. Snyder has always been great with visual effects (300, Watchmen) and it’ll be interesting to see what new elements he brings to his big budget film.

Krypton

No other Superman film has emphasized much of Superman’s home plant, Krypton, or his biological parents. I’m guessing Krypton will be featured more in this film. If you’re going to cast Russell Crowe as Jor-El (Superman’s biological father), I’m sure it’ll more than cameo.

This is good news. Shouldn’t we feel something when a plant filled with people blows up? How would we feel if Earth blew up and we were the only survivor? These are legitimate questions and questions worth exploring.

The Modern World

At the end of the trailer, Superman says, “My dad was convinced the world would reject me.” Superman has always been portrayed as a celebrated and beloved superhero. In reality, however, how would we feel knowing that there is a being on our earth with superhuman powers? Wouldn’t that make you a little nervous? How do we know we could trust him? Why would he want to protect us? What are his motives? What does he want?

Superman in the modern (real) world wouldn’t be celebrated or beloved but feared. It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with an enemy that threatens earth while the earth views him as a threat.

Conclusion

I’m excited for the film. I’m sure they’ll be great action sequences, but it’s also the character drama involved that gives the film substances and makes it much more compelling. June can’t come quickly enough.

The Jammer - This Means War

Welcome to the Tuesday morning edition of The Jammer, which I share thoughts on things that matter to me. Movies are on my mind today, actually, a particular movie. Since Valentine is around the corner you know Hollywood would attempt to cash in on the holiday. A couple of years ago New Line Cinema produced Valentine’s Day the movie, which had several big name actors/actresses. The critics hated it because it was completely void of substance and there were too many mini-storylines to follow that lead to the film being convoluted. It immediately felt like “Throw out as many names as possible and hope it sticks” type of movie. Needless to say, I didn’t watch it.

This year 20th Century Fox is attempting to cash in with the movie This Means War. When I heard Chris Pine and Tom Hardy were playing “Two of the world's deadliest CIA operatives who are inseparable partners and best friends” I was immediately hooked. Pine and Hardy are two young raising stars who have shown a decent amount of range from their previous roles. I’ve been waiting for them to take some more action roles. But then I read the next sentence – “until they discover that they've fallen in love with the same woman” with Reese Witherspoon (Lauren) thrown in the middle. Talk about getting your emotions jerked around! It went from actually being extremely excited for a movie for once to “What a waste of good talent and an idiotic premise.”

I get Hollywood’s reasoning. It’s Valentine’s Day and we need a Rom-Com with some eye-candy for both genders. Men will feel obligated to take their women on a date/movie so we’ll throw in some high-tech gadgetry, highly skilled fighting, and some explosions to make it appealing for the guys as well.

Here’s the problem. If two guys are “best friends” but yet are willing to kill each other at a drop of a hat over a girl they hardly know how good was that friendship to begin with? You might be saying, “You’re thinking way too hard. It’s only a movie.” You might be right. But my annoyance is Hollywood portraying fickle friendships as “entertainment.” Gone are the days of Frodo and Sam type of bonds that inspire you to deeper relationships.

Would it have been difficult to tweak the premise slightly? Let’s say Pine and Hardy’s characters were still best friends and top CIA agents you kick @$$. Pine is engaged to Witherspoon’s character and they are to marry with Hardy’s character being Pine’s best man because, you know, they’re “best friends.” But terrorist for whatever reason kidnaps Witherspoon and Pine sets out to save her with the help of Hardy because, you know, they’re “best friends.” While Pine and Hardy set out to save Witherspoon they uncover several terrorist plots and are forced to intervene. Pine has a deep sense of obligation to protect the people of the United States against these attacks over attempting to rescue his girl. Hardy realizes this about Pine and instead attempts to rescue Witherspoon for Pine because, you know, they’re “best friends.”

In short, Pine saves the United States from a terrorist plot while Hardy saves Witherspoon for his buddy but not without sacrificing his own life in the process. Hardy dies in Witherspoon’s arms and tells her with his last breath, “He’ll have to pick a new best man.” Witherspoon response by saying, “You’ll always be his best man” while sopping over his body. Fast forward several years with Pine and Witherspoon visiting Hardy’s grave with their son named after Hardy’s character. Witherspoon picking up their son and gives Pine a moment alone at Hardy’s grave. He gives a sentimental speech to Hardy about him always being his “best man” even though he was unable to be at the wedding. The End.

Now instead of having “Romance” and “Friendship” at odds with one another you actually have them both displayed in honorable ways and working together. Who’s NOT watching that movie? Instead, we’ll get two “best friends” beating each other to death over a girl they hardly know. Sweet! Because nothing beats shallow relationships, then again, I might just be thinking too hard.

Here's the trailer:

The Jammer - 01.24.12

I’m starting a series called The Jammer, which will point out up and coming movies and whatever I find interesting in the news. Hope you readers enjoy and comments are always appreciated.

Upcoming Movies

The Grey

In Alaska, a plane crashes in the wild leaving several oil workers stranded and fighting for their lives against the elements and a pack of hungry wolves. Liam Neeson vs. a pack of hungry wolves? I’m sold. I was pleasantly surprised with his action chops in Taken and wouldn’t mind if he turned his @$$kicking ways to a bunch of wolves. At the end of the trailer you see Neeson look at a wolf, strap mini broken bottles to his knuckles, and run head first towards the animal. Ballsy! What’s not to like?



Project X

Anytime Hollywood could exploit youthful ignorance it will pounce like a cheetah on cocaine. Here’s film without much of a story and completely void of substance but relying on totally on a bunch of teenagers acting like jackasses on jackass steroids. And you know what? This movie is going to make a lot of $$$. After this movie comes out how many idiot teenagers are going to think behaving recklessly is “cool?” And popularity among peers is the chief end of all mankind? Thanks Hollywood for continuing to poison our youth and making every effort to steer them towards hell in the name of making a profit.

I don't even want to link the trailer but if you really want to see it here it is.

Interesting News

I realize I’m a little late with this bit of news but I just found out that Starbucks would begin serving beer and wine. They already started in Seattle and will begin at select Southern California stores.

My mom owned a 7-11 for as long as I could remember. My sister, Vicky, took over the store, located in East Los Angeles, after she passed away. I could tell you serving alcohol doesn’t bring in the classiest of customers. I’m not saying people who purchase alcohol are gangsters and thugs. But what I am saying gangsters and thugs purchase alcohol. If your customer base is typically the working middle class who enjoy coffee and/or students who enjoy studying at a Starbucks, why in the world are you going to attempt to reach a demographic that could cause tension? Because, you know, college students enjoy studying with a bunch of cholo(s). Is Starbucks going to refer the 40oz Old English as the “Double Venti OE?” I moved out of East Los Angeles in order to get away from that demographic.

That’s it for today. Leave your comments on the topics mentioned above. I would love to hear your opinion. Should Starbucks start serving alcohol? Should there be an episode of Man vs. Wild where Bear Grylls shows us how to fight off a pack of wolves?

The Avengers – Trailer

At the end of Captain America: First Avenger we had a teaser from The Avengers Movie releasing later this summer. I remember leaving the theater wanting to buy a custom of one of the characters but couldn’t decide which one. The Avengers Movie is the most ambitious comic movie to date. Ever since the release of Iron Man (2008) and The incredible Hulk (2008) fan boys have been anticipating the superhero team-up for years. Here’s the basic premise:

When an unexpected enemy emerges who threatens global safety and security, Nick Fury, the director of the international peacekeeping agency known as S.H.I.E.L.D., finds himself in need of a team of superheroes to pull the world back from the brink of disaster.

Now the first full-length trailer arrived a week ago and people are buzzing over the new footage. Rightly so, each of the main members of The Avengers have had their solo movies, so watching all of them on the same screen interacting with each other is pretty exciting.

I was never a big fan of The Avengers growing up, but the way Marvel Studios has set up this movie is unparalleled. I’ll sum it up in this short phrase, “I’m in.” I don’t really care that I didn’t read the comics growing up. I’m sold. The fact that any studio has this much balls to put up this much money (budget at $220M) while producing solo movies with separate origin stories for each main character shows me they’re serious about making a good movie.

This doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns about the movie. I realize that I’m only basing my concerns off of the first trailer, but it’s the only thing I have at the moment. Despite being a trailer I can still see potential problems along the way.

Concerns:

Is This Iron Man 3?

I really enjoyed the first Iron Man movie. Robert Downey, Jr.’s character Tony Stark was impressive. The journey of his transformation from a billionaire playboy to selfless superhero was compelling. Then Iron Man 2 came out and basically nullified everything good that happened in the first movie. Now I’ve seen plenty of sequels inferior to their predecessors, but it’s rare to see a sequel so awful that it torpedoed everything good about the original. That’s what Iron Man 2 did for me. It tainted the masterpiece that was Iron Man.

Seriously, how are you going to have a compelling transformation story of a narcissistic jackass turned sacrificial hero only to turn him back into an even worse narcissistic jackass in the sequel? Halfway through Iron Man 2, I thought their goal was to have us actually root against the hero. Mission accomplished.

In the Avengers trailer, Tony Starks is clearly pushing some of the other team members buttons and getting on people’s nerves. I hope this doesn’t turn into Iron Man 3. I understand you need diversity within a group in order to make them compelling. You also need that one wild card to stir the pot and make the team dynamically interesting in the way they interact with each other. Clearly, Tony Stark is that guy. But if he goes overboard and continues the narcissistic jackass rout, his character will simply be annoying instead of compelling.

Mark Ruffalo vs. Edward Norton (Hulk vs. Hulk)

The original 2008 The Incredible Hulk was a solid movie. Edward Norton as Dr. Bruce Banner was sensational. Norton is one of my favorite actors so I was excited when I heard he was cast as Banner. Then negotiations to sign on for The Avengers broke down, which resulted in Norton not resigning with the franchise. This led the studio to cast Mark Ruffalo to take Norton’s place. This is like downgrading from Dwight Howard to Andrew Bogut. Bogut is a serviceable big man but he’s not in D. Howard’s class. Ruffalo is a serviceable actor but not in Norton’s class. If you were going to pull out all the stops for a big budget movie you’ve been planning for years, wouldn’t you get the best actors possible, especially a movie heavily relying on previous origin stories as backdrop? So if Marvel is hoping that we won’t notice downgrading an A-list actor to a B-list actor they’re sorely mistaken. Whatever the issue was ($$$), Norton not returning as Dr. Banner was a big disappointment. Lets hope The Hulk spends more time as The Hulk instead of Dr. Banner.

Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff (aka The Black Widow)

After watching the trailer I asked myself, “I wonder how many times S. Johansson will use the flying head-scissors move on an opponent, end up in a couching position after finishing him off, and whipping her hair back like she’s in a Salon Selective commercial?” Because we didn’t see that at all in Iron Man 2.

I don’t want to give the impression that I’m not looking forward to the movie because I am. Here’s a list of things I’m really looking forward.

Tom Hiddleston as Loki

The Loki in the Thor movie was a spineless manipulating twit. When I heard that he’ll be the main villain in The Avengers, I thought, “How is that wimpy fool going to cause a crisis big enough to assemble The Avengers?” After some short clips from the trailer, it’s clear that Loki looks emotionally damaged, much more cynical, and extremely darker. He doesn’t look like the spineless twit in the Thor movie but someone really hell-bent on kicking some serious tail.

Speaking of Thor, there is a quick scene with Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Nick Fury, directly asking Thor, “What are you prepared to do?” No doubt this is an awkward situation for Thor with his stepbrother attempting to destroy the earth and all. I can already see T. Starks’ wisecracks about this situation, “Wait a minute! This dude is your brother?” It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Iron Man (The Suit)

I already mentioned my concerns for the character. What I’m really looking forward to is what Iron Man’s suit will be able to do this time around. In each Iron Man movie (or in this case a movie with Iron Man in it) there has to be some type of upgrade to his suit, right? Something new and cool we haven’t seen yet? The couple of flying sequences in the trailer looked great, especially for only a trailer. I’m guessing there will be an initial attack where Iron Man gets his rear end handed to him only to go back to the drawing board finding out ways to improve his suit and utilizing those improvements just in time for the final battle scene. Okay, this is fairly predictable, but still, it’s going to be good when it happens.

Tony Starks

The flip side of my concerns with T. Starks is he can pull off the wild card member well. He can give the team dynamic enough tension where the interactions between members won’t become static but more interesting while never crossing the “complete narcissistic jackass I can’t route for” line. There’s zero gray area with this character. Either the character is well written and Downey will pull off an amazing performance where the audience will be eager for Iron Man 3, or the character will pick up where he left off in Iron Man 2. Everyone will end up hating him (the other team members and the audience) because he’s the same old narcissistic jackass, and we’ll hope he ends up blowing up or dying in the final battle scene in a blaze of glory Scarface style so we don’t have to endure Iron Man 3. There’s no in between.

Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye

Jeremy Renner has become quite the big deal. In 2009 he was in The Hurt Locker (Nominated for Best Actor). In 2010 he was in The Town (Nominated for Best Supporting Actor) will co-star with Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (and is rumored to take over the franchise) and will take over The Bourne Identity franchise in The Bourne Legacy. He’s had an amazing run and I don’t seeing it stopping with The Avengers. Renner’s character, Hawkeye, doesn’t have superpowers so he’ll rely on guile and wit (much like the comics). I’m looking forward to a plain human being kicking some super powered villains’’ butts.

If you’re wondering “How did you get all of that in one trailer?” Short answer: No NBA. What else am I going to do with my time? Here’s the trailer:

This Week In Movies - The Thing

The movie “The Thing,” which is actually a prequel to the original 1982 movie titled . . . wait for it . . . “The Thing.” I’m not sure how they expect us not to get confused. I enjoyed the original 1982 horror flick with Kurt Russell. He rocked in that movie.

Also, I remember watching it with my grandma who happened to love horror flicks, especially if they were B-Movies. For some reason she never did enjoy high budget horror flicks and probably wouldn’t be interested in most horror flicks made today. Na . . . Who am I kidding? She would love the horror flicks today!

As I became older and more importantly became a Christian, my taste for horror flicks faded. Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy classics like Aliens and the iconic role Sigourney Weaver played as Ellen Ripley and the original 1987 Predator film starring our former Arnold Schwarzenegger and his kick-butt role as Major Alan “Dutch” Schaefer.

How many 80’s flicks to you still hear quoted? (e.g., “Get to the chopper!” “Come on kill me, I’m right here . . . DO IT NOW!!!”)

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, The Thing coming out this week. Here’s a quick synopsis of the movie:

Paleontologist Kate Lloyd has traveled to the desolate region for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. But it is about to wake up.

Here’s “the thing” about prequels that I don’t enjoy. If we’ve seen the original movie, then we all know where the film is going to end up. Prequels by there very nature are predetermined. I understand watching the journey is part of the fun but it only applies to films with depth, character, and a compelling story. For example, even though most fanboys of the Star Wars franchise were disappointed by the prequels it was still interesting to watch because of the iconic characters the previous movies established (e.g., Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, etc.). We wanted to know “How did they get here?” despite the fact that we knew where they would end up.

Ridley Scott is currently working on the prequel to Alien called Prometheus.

The film will be successful (financial speaking) for the same principles, which I mentioned above. The Aliens in Scott’s films were kick-butt wicked and downright scary as h***. Furthermore, Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ellen Ripley, empowered women to the degree that would rival the Feminist movement. So naturally, people are interested in the “How did the Aliens come to being?” because we’re interested in the aliens themselves and the aliens gave rise to Ellen Ripley who was a compelling character.

This bags the question, “Does The Thing carry the same weight?” Although Kurt Russell rocked the house in the original I’ll have to answer that question with, “very little.” Sadly, most Hollywood prequels these days are “cash grabs,” a sorry attempt to make more money and past success. I may check out the movie when it streams on Netflix but not before. And I’ll only check it out to pay homage to the original. But if you decide to go see it before it streams on Netflix, let me know if it stinks.

A review by ScreenRant is here.

Here’s the trailer:

This Week In Movies

If you know me personally you’ll know that I love movies and I love to dissect them like the frog in my high school Biology class (which I hardly showed up for). Well, I should say that I love good movies and if you’ve been following my blog for any amount of time you’ll know I complain quite a bit on the quality, or lack thereof, of movies lately. Let’s take a quick look at what’s out this week.

Abduction



When Lionsgate decide to make Abduction with Twilight heart-throb Taylor Lautner, I immediately thought this movie was going to be a Twilight version of the Jason Bourne movies (which rocked!). If you’re going to make an action flick you better make sure to market it to men who watch to see someone kicking some tail. When you cast Taylor Lautner as the lead character you’re slapping men who enjoy action flicks in the face. And I don’t like getting slapped in the face. We have the common sense to know when Lautner is the lead in a movie the studio is marketing to young women. Thanks but no thanks. I’ll take a pass. Although I have a feeling my buddy Bryan will go to this stupid move because he has daughters. Good luck.

Read Abduction reviews here.

Moneyball



There are only two things I know about Major League Baseball. First, I live in L.A. so I know the Dodgers are currently awful. The second thing is everyone seems to hate the Yankees for some reason. Outside of those two things you could convince me Babe Ruth was still playing. However, the movie Moneyball seems interesting. I know it seems like the typical “Bad News Bears” us against the world typical sports movie but I like movie that challenges the conventional type of thinking in order to achieve greatness. Besides, Brad Pitt is in the movie. Yes, I’m a heterosexual man AND a Brad Pitt fan. Also, my buddy Chris Hunt is an A’s fan and we haven’t hung out for a while. This would be a perfect excuse to get him out of the house.


Read Moneyball reviews here.

Machine Gun Preacher



The title alone sparks interest. As a Christian man I have a problem with a preacher using any type of gun. But there is something in me that wants to see how this plays out. A former drug-dealer and criminal comes to know Christ and decides to become a missionary in East Africa sounds astonishing. Of course this is Hollywood, which is notorious for taking good premises and running them into the ground. I’m taking the “open but cautious” approach, which usually means I’m renting it.

Reviews were not available.

Where Have All The Good X-Men Films Gone?

Due to several traumatic experiences during my childhood, I only have a few pleasant memories that are not completely fragmented that I can draw upon every now and again. Some would say it’s “repressed memory,” or “Lacunar amnesia.” Whatever the case, I’m not about to pay a psychologist $350 per hour in order to retrieve memories I probably don’t even want.

However, one of the few good memories during my childhood I still have intact was reading the X-Men comics late at night and watching the cartoons early Saturday morning in my pajamas with a giant bowl of cereal, the entire box to my left and the gallon of milk to my right. I can’t tell you how many bowls of cereal I went through those mornings, only that it was pointless for me to put the milk back in the refrigerator. I was like a drunkard at a bar binge drinking, “Bartender . . . just leave the bottle.”

So you could imagine when 20th Century Fox announced that they were going to make X-Men into a feature film it brought back memories of everything I read in the comics and watched in the shows. It also brought back memories of my cereal/milk binging days.

In the summer of 2000, X-Men the movie was released. Directed by Bryan Singer, it provided a solid foundation for future X-Men movies. The movie itself wasn’t spectacular and it had a few issues, which I won’t get into here, but it was solid and I enjoyed it. Remember, we were still trying to recover from the Joel Schumacher vomit-awful Batman movies that nearly torpedoed the entire comic book movie genre. So “solid” was a good start.

In the summer of 2003, Fox (not surprisingly) released a sequel called X2: X-Men United. Now this film has been one of the few sequels to surpass its’ predecessor in both quality and box office success. The characters were well-developed, the dialogue was good, and it had a decent story. I really liked this movie. Nightcrawer’s opening action sequence in the White House to start the narrative was lights out! The ending also left you excited for future installments.

The X-Men franchise was clearly on solid footing and I couldn’t be more excited to see what the future of X-Men movies had to offer. The franchise took an interesting turn, however, when Bryan Singer decided to jump ship from the franchise that he helped launch into comic book movie glory and went to another beloved comic book character, Superman. Singer said that it was always a boyhood dream to be able to direct a Superman movie. I wonder if those dreams included running the storied character into the ground and the film being both highly criticized and a box office failure? I’m referring to “Superman Returns” in 2006. This was an amazing feet because Warner Bros. has been trying for years to get this franchise off the ground again.

Singer’s actions also had an adverse effect on the X-Men franchise because he left. As a result of his leaving, Fox had to rush the production, complete what was left of the story, and hire a director (Brett Ratner in this case) to pick up the pieces. In 2006, “X-Men: The Last Stand” was released and it was just down right crappy. There’s really no other way to put it. It was so awful that it nearly retrofected my good childhood memories of the X-Men by threatening to turn them into a traumatic experience. Brett Ratner was an awful director but I don’t blame him entirely considering the circumstances.

Of course Fox realized that the X-Men brand was a cash cow and continued to produce X-Movies in the form of X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) and X-Men: First Class (2011). Wolverine was awful and a sequel, The Wolverine, is due for release some time in 2013. Since I felt like I’ve been burned by the last two X-Movies, I decided to wait for First Class to go to DVD in order to rent it. A franchise can only burn its customers for so long and get away with it. After watching it the other night, I was left unimpressed. Singer came back as a producer for First Class and I was hoping he could help recapture the magic of the first two films. Nope.

First Class was not only a disappointing movie (although Michael Fassbender as a young Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto was outstanding) but it was a disappointment on how the X-Franchise took a turn for the worst. Why do good movie franchises inevitably run themselves into the ground? Maybe it’s all the red tape a film has to go through and all the hands that have to get involved, from the studios, producers, writers, etc. Maybe it’s the system of the film industry that’s broken? Whatever the case, it’s unfortunate.

Is there a lesson in all of this? I say yes. When you have a vision or project, stay the course in much the same way that Christopher Nolan’s reboot Batman franchise has. Nolan has clearly said that his third Bat-film will be his last and that he will bring the trilogy to its conclusion. He started something and now he’s going to finish it. I have no doubts that The Dark Knight Rises will be epic on many levels. It makes me think of things I’ve started and have yet to finish or even things I want to start but wonder if I’ll finish. In either case, regarding my life, I would much rather be a visionary like Chris Nolan, rising a franchise back from the dead and seeing it from start to finish, instead of a short-sighted Bryan Singer, leaving a franchise for dead.

Thoughts On Some Up Coming Movies

I don't know about you but watching the movies that Hollywood is pumping out is like watching McDonalds make their Chicken McNuggets. It's just gross. Okay, so the movie Battleship is a film inspired by the Milton Bradley board game, which James Cameron criticizes Hollywood's lack of creativity. I didn't really need James Cameron to tell me that Hollywood is lacking in the creativity department. I mean, when I was a kid I had the game as well but I don't remember any alien spacecrafts or Brookly Decker in the game. How dumb is it to make a movie off of a board game? Maybe people think that if Disney could a movie franchise based off a ride then there are no bounds. Apparently there are no bounds for good reasoning either. I think I'll take a pass on this one.



The Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the Planet of the Apes series in the late 1960(s). I also remember the series when I was a kid. Even as a kid, I remembered the corny dialogue and the K-Mart halloween level ape costumes used for the show. Now there Hollywood decided to reboot this series with an origin story I said to myself, "Why would I watch a movie knowing that in the end we (humans) get our butts kicked." I mean, are we not the good guys? At least I like to think so. At least in Battleship I know that we'll win in the end because any Human vs. Aliens movies we come out on top, right? How in the world is this a selling point for anyone? I've never caught the Harry Potter fever. Boy wizards are just not my thing. But I could understand why others would be into it. But Apes kicking the crap out of us? Out-smarting us? And taking over the world? Really? Who's going to sign up for that? Animal rights activists? The people from PETA? Do they even watch movies?



The Smurfs Movie is already out and you're not going to believe this but it's getting terrible reviews. The people that are young enough to remember the cartoon are now too old to care. Furthermore, if the current kids generation doesn't know about The Smurfs why would they care? This movie is about three decades too late. But this is just another example of Hollywood saying, "We got nothin'."



In the end, I hope that we don't keep watching and paying for crap because Hollywood would making crap and jacking up the prices to boot. It's like Starbucks over-charging for their coffee. If there are people willing to pay, they'll be people willing to sell.

The Other Guys - Motion Poster

If Bryan and I were ever in an action movie I think it would look something close to this. Actually, Bryan was trying to convince me of doing a movie of our lives. I told him that only three people in the world would get our humor and we're two of them. He's still dreaming of a script of course.




The look on Will Ferrell's face while he's shooting the guns had me rolling.

Tron in 3D

Now I haven't jumped on the 3D bandwagon just yet. I understand it seems to be the new "cool" thing for the movie-going experience. However, do I really want to have things thrown at my face for two and a half hours? I often read movie reviews of new releases and there has been a fair share of them that say certain movies in 3D have been distracting. My fear is that more movies will attempt to sell more on the visuals instead of the story because thanks to movies like Avatar, 3D has become a cash-cow. So why bother with a good story or have characters with any depth? Lets just work on something that looks cool on 3D.

However, there are movies that would sell you on the visuals anyway so 3D doesn't really matter. Like the up coming release (Dec 17, 2010) of Tron Legacy. I have to admit the trailer got me pretty excited. No, I haven't seen a movie in 3D yet. But if I'm going to try it once, why not Tron Legacy?

As a kid growing up I loved the original. I played the game at my mom's 7-Eleven everyday after school. Now a sequel is coming out with all the advances in special effects. Holy Cow!!! How do I NOT watch this movie in 3D?! I'm not entirely sure if the wife is on board but in any case, I'm watching this thing because it's one of few good childhood memories that I have. Anything that makes me feel like a kid again, you could count me in.

Here's the original 1982 trailer for kicks:


Here's the latest Tron Legacy trailer:


For more information on this movie click here.

Worst of the Worst

Aaron Brown posted this on his blog so I'll post it hear since I like being warned to not waste my time watching crappy movies. I'm certainly glad that I haven't seen most of the movies on this list. I have no doubts that I could come up with my own list of top 100 awful movies, which I wasted my life watching. That has to be one of the things I hate the most, watching a movie hoping that it's good and by the end you say, "I could have been doing something productive with that time, like putting a puzzle together or call and actually talk to someone." Time is a gift and we shouldn't be wasting it on crappy movies. Although there's no way to be certain which movies will turn out lame even though some are a little more obvious than others. So I suggest taking a look at this list and seeing the directors and production companies that have multiple movies on this list and avoid these companies in the future. Deal? Deal.

This list was made by Rottentomatoes.

Is anything starring Vin Diesel ever good? Early in the decade there were more of his films on the list but since producers are intent on making their dung hill higher this is the only movie that made the list. I think it's safe to say that if Vin is in it you should take a pass.










I never really understood why people think that Dane Cook is funny. I think that Bryan is funnier. Now that's saying something. I'm starting to get tired of people getting by simply on name recognition.




I remember seeing the trailer for this movie on TV and thought it was going to come out on TNT as an "original movie." Then when the trailer ended and showed the release date at the theaters, I thought, "there's no way that's a real movie." It looked a film major's senior project. If the film looks low-budget that's never a good sign. And this movie was "straight out of lo-cash."






I'm certainly glad that these mockumentaries made the list. For the life of me I don't know how production companies get away with making half-baked movies over and over and over again. The script of these movies must of taken about twenty minutes to write.



It doesn't take a lot of thought to put these movies together. I understand that they market these movies to Middle Schoolers but I teach my Middle Schoolers better than that. I tell them that producers don't think very highly of them when they keep trying to feed them the same crap rapped in a different package. That's my way of educating the youth and sticking it to The man.




Hopefully my students will actually remember what I taught them and stop paying for these dumb movies so they can stop making them.






Knowing didn't make the list. This doesn't imply that it wasn't bad but there are THAT many movies that are even more awful than this one. Now that's really sad.









Here's another movie that didn't make the list. My wife and I went to go see this movie. I thought to myself, "I like funny people and the title is 'Funny People' so it must be funny." Well, the logic didn't follow or the humor. The wife and I were a little late and sat down at the back in the middle of a scene. From the time we opened the door to finding a seat we must of heard about seventeen F-bombs and a host of crass and degrading language by men towards a particular woman. We walked out immediately and kindly asked for our money back. I was pretty offended, not so much with the language but with the fact that the producers of this movie thinks I would enjoy such base humor. Really? I am a grown man now, if I wanted to watch other grown men act like they're still in Middle School I would just go hang out with Bryan.




I rented this movie thinking that it couldn't be bad because it had Brat Pitt in it. Wrong again. Even though there are amazing stars out there, every single one of them has a flop here and there. The story was slow in developing and the editing was completely incoherent. I didn't even finish watching it. So even a great actor like Brat Pitt is in a movie that does not guarantee quality.



Well, it's time for bed so I'll just let you finish the list on your own and make your own comments. Believe me, there are plenty of movies to bag on, sadly. I'm certainly not looking forward to the next decade of movie making. There will come a point where there be nothing to rent as well. I guess I better learn how to read.

In Memory of John Hughes

Early this month the entertainment world lost an amazing director John Hughes. Sadly, I didn’t know much about him before he died. If you have been following my blog or even my facebook page you’ll notice that I am constantly complaining about the trash that Hollywood produces.

ESPN columnist Bill Simmons responding to one of his readers' questions:
Q: In light of John Hughes death (one of my favorites of all time) I ask you this obvious question about "Ferris Bueller's Day Off": How is it possible to fit so much into roughly an eight hour span?
-- Mike, Columbia, Mo.

Simmons: Glad you brought this up. Four things amazed me after Hughes' untimely passing. First, I couldn't believe how little I knew about him given he was one of the biggest influences of my formative years, and beyond that, I couldn't believe how little thought I had given to him (not only during that time, but after). Second, I was shocked to find out that he wrote "Mr. Mom" and "Vacation." Either I knew this and forgot it, or I never knew it. Third, if you were doing a 10-round fantasy draft in which you could own the entire IMDB.com resume of any writer/director on DVD, John Hughes would go in the first round ... and I didn't realize this until after he died.

Fourth, it's astonishing how completely he owned the '80s compared to anyone else. When I think of a pure '80s movie, there's a specific time range (1982-1987), a specific bent (teenagers are misunderstood and deeper than we think, adults are evil or nonexistent, rich people and school administrators irrevocably suck), a definitive musical feel (can't be fully defined, but you know it when you hear it), a certain rewatchability (good movies that gained steam culturally once they hit cable) and had to resonate with people of that age range (the future Generation X) in a unique way. Well, I was there. I was John Hughes' target audience: born in 1969, weaned on pop culture, geeky and idealistic, loved music, thought way too much about stuff. And really, if you stuck 20 DVDs in a time capsule as a way to explain to future generations, "This is what the '80s were like," you'd have to include these 15 movies: "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Risky Business," "Vacation," "Sixteen Candles," "Beverly Hills Cop," "The Breakfast Club," "Karate Kid," "About Last Night," "St. Elmo's Fire," "Ferris Bueller," "Better Off Dead," "Pretty in Pink," "Can't Buy Me Love," "Rocky IV" and "Top Gun." John Hughes was directly involved in five of the 15. This is amazing. And it doesn't even cover "Home Alone," the greatest kids movie of all-time (in my opinion, anyway).

In the last mailbag, I wrote how it's so difficult for anyone to be overrated or underrated in this day and age. But up until the moment he died, you could argue that Hughes was the single most underrated person in Hollywood. I mean, I follow the movie world as diligently as anyone and was still learning things about him after he died. I wish I had written about him before now, but honestly, it never occurred to me to do so. Which is why he was so underrated.

OK, back to Mike's "Ferris" question. So many readers asked me this that I almost felt obligated to figure it out until I remembered something: Realistically, Ferris and Cameron didn't pick up Sloane until somewhere between 9:30 and 10:15. They lived at least 25-30 minutes from downtown Chicago and returned home at about 6. We know this because Sloane looked at her watch right near the end. So that means in the span of slightly less than eight hours ..

They drove to Chicago; dropped off the car; visited the top of the Sears Tower as well the Stock Market; went to the Museum of Art long enough for Cameron to have a life epiphany; cabbed it over to the French restaurant; ate lunch at Abe Froman's table; headed over to Wrigley Field; attended an afternoon Cubs game long enough for the pizza guy to tell Ed Rooney that it was the third inning (and for Ferris to catch a foul ball); headed back to downtown Chicago; took part in a parade in which Ferris sang "Danke Schoen" on a giant float without having rehearsed it; picked up the car; drove home; hung out at Cameron's pool; spent at least 20-25 minutes trying to take the miles off Cameron's car and watched Cameron subsequently destroy his father's car and then tell them he'd take the heat for it (which always bothered me because no father would forgive something that creepy, and besides, unless his father was molesting him, how bad could he have been that you'd destroy a beautiful piece of machinery like that?); left Cameron's house so Ferris could walk Sloane home; then Ferris sprinted back to his house to make it in time for dinner.




Seems improbable, right? No way all of that stuff happens in less than 10 hours unless they basically made a two-inning cameo at the Cubs game and left. (Conceivable, by the way. How can you top catching a foul ball? And if Sloane hated baseball and pushed for them to leave after 2-3 innings, wouldn't the logical next stop for them -- if a girl who hated sports was running the show -- be that art museum?) But there's no way to know, which leads me to the following idea: Shouldn't three Chicago kids re-enact Ferris' entire day and see if they could pull it off in less than eight hours? Bring a couple of Flip cameras, tape everything, see if you can do it and stick the results on YouTube. John Hughes would be proud.

Junior again: I totally wish that I wrote this because I felt the same way about Hughes. But since Simmons wrote it I’ll post it here. At least it saved me some time. Considering what I said about Nolan, I would like to add Hughes to the list of great directors. I remember Ferris Bueller’s Day Off being influential in my life. So influential that I took about 60 days off my senior year in high school, which probably wasn’t a good thing. But that fact that the movie left such an impression on me says something. When was the last movie that did that? We certainly need more of Hughes creativity in the world. Where have all the good movies gone?

Batman News

Considering the current plight of Hollywood pumping out crap as much as a cow farm I am feeling hopeful with the news of Christopher Nolan dropping out of production for The Prisoner and is heading back to direct the third Batman movie. Although nothing is official I remind encouraged.

What I find baffling is how other studios have not learned their lesson from The Dark Knight. I recently heard that Warner Brothers wants to make a new Superman movie in the “dark” genre or at least “as dark as the character will allow.” The success of The Dark Knight was not merely in the fact that it was “dark.” Although that was helpful, the real success of the blockbuster hit was due to the fact that it had a great storyline, character development, and several psychological layers dealing with sociological issues both individually and collectively.

Christopher Nolan says that he does not want to come back and do a third Batman movie unless there is a story worth telling. Did you hear that? “A STORY WORTH TELLING!” He’s not concerned with how much darker they can make Batman or what kind of new special effects would be pleasing to the eyes. It is about the story for Nolan. The freakin’ story!! It seems so simple that making a movie is about a good story, but more often than not, Hollywood wants to sell people on the name brand or the CGI instead of developing something that has any amount of depth to it (I’m looking at you G.I. Joe).

You may or may not have liked The Dark Knight. However, it cannot be denied that the complexity of the characters and the storyline with its underlying philosophical issues intertwined throughout it took the genre of comic book movies into an entirely different place. I wrote this last year after The Dark Knight came out. I’m done with Michael Bay feeding us CGI crap in Transformers 2 and the cheese that is G.I. Joe who actually cast Marion Wayans.

When Paramount Pictures announced that they were going to do a live-action movie of G.I. Joe, I thought it might be interesting. Once they cast Marion Wayans, however, it was like saying to me: “We are going to make a movie about the beloved toys that you, and almost every little boy, grew up with and not take the creation of it seriously whatsoever. In fact, we are going to run it through mud so that you are left with zero happy childhood memories.” Thanks Paramount. What did I ever do to you? I might as well go to the zoo and have monkeys throw their own feces at me, which would have been the appropriate equivalent of seeing that film.


I didn’t know much about Nolan before the Batman reboot. The DVD extras for both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were amazing. I heard Nolan’s rationale behind everything he did in the movies and it made me appreciate his creativity all the more. Developing multiple psychological layers, quality character development, dealing with conflicting worldviews, and probing the heart and mind of the human soul were all the things thought impossible when it came to comic book movies. Nolan made it possible, and for the life of me I don’t know why other directors don’t take that idea, apply it to another comic book character, and put their own unique style on it.

In short, it has been a long time since I have looked forward to a movie that will be well made and has some level of depth to it, and sadly, the wait continues.

The Dark Knight

Originally posted on August 20, 2008

Warning Spoiler: Although if you haven’t seen the movie by now you probably don’t care.

This is not intended to be a review (I leave that to guys like Nate Bell who know how to write reviews) but a personal reflection touching on the themes and characters that I found intriguing and provocative in the movie. The reason I waited so long to write this is because I wanted time to process the movie and let my emotions come down. Furthermore, I wanted to hear what other people were saying about the movie, critics and moviegoers alike. So what I’m about to say I’ve given a lot of thought to and discussed it with peers whom I respect. The popularity of this movie, as well as the character of Batman himself, I believe reveals a little something about us that is worth writing about, “So…here…we…go.”

Christopher Nolan wanted to make an action movie that was very different than the typical action movie. Nolan wanted a darker, more despairing, and twisted movie. He did so by casting Heath Ledger as the Joker. I admit that I was initially skeptical, much like everyone else, with that casting. I was hoping it wasn’t a Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom type of casting, which made Spider-Man 3 suck so badly. After the first couple of Joker scenes I was immediately hooked on the character. That is the difference between Topher Grace and Heath Ledger, namely, talent. Critics are saying that it was Ledger’s definitive work. Well, I don’t know about you but I would rather be remembered as the best Joker than a gay cowboy but that’s just me. I would have to agree with the critics on that one.

A scene between Alfred (Michael Caine) and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a dialogue discussing the Joker described him the best, “Some men are not after power…some men just want to watch the world burn.” There is no rhyme or reason for the Joker’s menacing acts. He is evil personified.

It’s clear that Nolan took the genre of comic book movies to an entirely different place. I was completely exhausted after the movie and it wasn’t even the action scenes. It was the themes of moral complexity that make movies like “Hellboy II” and “The Incredible Hulk” look like, well, comic books. Most comic book movies rely on the action to keep the audience engaged, but the action in The Dark Knight was just part of the detail (although they kick some serious tail. I mean, who’s going to forget the Bat-pod coming out of the Batmobile and flipping over an eighteen-wheeler?).

The complexity of Batman’s character and the themes and sub themes in the movie related to him made it difficult for me to synthesize my thoughts. As a result, I decided to just talk about a few things realizing that I could probably go on forever. First, there is something that separates Batman from other superheroes. He is human. How he attained his superhero abilities is his extraordinary capacity for self-discipline. Second, he is a billionaire who uses his resources in order to have the best technology at his disposal to fight crime. Finally, the idea of him becoming a superhero was born out of tragedy.

No, Batman did not come from the plant Krypton or have mutant genes. He is just like everyone of us. Human. In Batman Begins, he devoted himself to fighting crime by intense training. But he didn’t stop with mere fighting abilities. He has the intelligence, savvy, and wit that makes him a great detective as well. Simply put, he has the brain to go with the bron.

This is a reminder that if we truly want to achieve anything worth while it will take discipline, sacrifice, and resolve. So often I just want things handed to me. That’s not how the world works. People who are naturally gifted have a tendency to be arrogant or struggle with being egocentric. Professional athletes are a perfect example whereas those who work extremely hard to achieve their accomplishments tend to have a greater appreciation for the end result. A few questions to think about related to this idea: how many people devote themselves with such intensity for a purpose that brings peace and justice for others instead of self-glorification? Am I just as motivated to do something if it only works out for other people’s benefit the way Bruce Wayne/Batman does? If I had the resources that Bruce Wayne does, what would I do with them?

Again, the whole idea of Batman was born out of tragedy. Here is a person who lost his parents at a young age and realized that the world is not a safe place. Interestingly, Batman’s enemies also suffer tragedy in their own lives but react to it much differently. In The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent and Batman suffered the same tragedy when the Joker killed Rachel Dawes. Although Batman mourned her death and even had doubts about continuing the good fight, he fought on. Harvey Dent, however, did not stay the course but turned into Two-Face. What tragedy does is bring to light the darkest part of our soul. It reveals who we truly are and what matters to us most. In the beginning of the film, it would seem that justice was what mattered most to Harvey Dent. But as the foreshadowing line, “You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain” shows, what mattered most to Harvey Dent was Rachael Dawes. When he loses her, he loses his entire mission, his purpose became twisted, and his heart was darkened with hatred.

What’s the difference between the two? The difference was that Batman knew there was a cost for his crusade for justice. He had suffered tragedy before as a young child and almost lost his way trying to make sense of it all. In Batman Begins, we learn that Bruce Wayne was wrestling his inner demons of guilt and anger. The conflict nearly led to uncontrollable rage that threatened to destroy him. However, he did not lose his way but stayed focus and as a result was now equipped for the fight. He faced his fears, conquered them, and used the very image that he was fearful of (a Bat) and turned it into an incorruptible symbol that would strike fear into the hearts of those who prey on the innocent. He took that which was evil in his life and turned it for good.

So why is Batman so popular? There is this idea of how one reacts to tragedy and suffering. At a young age, after his parents were taken from him, Bruce Wayne dedicated his life to making sure that this would not happen to anyone else. In contrast, the villains in the Batman world when faced with decisions after a tragedy felt as though the world owed them something and decided to take it, no matter what the cost to others. Bruce Wayne made a decision to rise above his circumstances, and this is what I believe makes the Batman character arguably the most intriguing comic book hero because we aspire to be someone like this. Once again, he is human and struggles with the same things that you and I do everyday. When faced with a difficult decision will we be incorruptible and do the right thing? According to how much this movie has made, I think we at least want to try.

"Knowing" Movies

Warning spoiling: although that’s probably a good thing.

The other night I decided to rent Knowing starring Nicolas Cage because I thought that the premise was interesting, and I remembered one of my friends from Biola read the script well before it went into production. So I said to myself, “Why not?” Well, it turned out to be a big mistake. No, make that a BIG mistake.

Since I had a fairly hard workout in the morning, I decided to skip basketball in the evening and stay at home with the wife so we could watch a movie together. It sounded like a good idea at the time- until Knowing happened! The movie was so terrible it absolutely ruined my evening with my wife.

The problem with the movie was that it had an interesting premise and the potential to be a decent movie. Sadly, nowadays a “decent” movie is a rarity and most people, myself included, will even settle for an “okay” movie. It’s truly a sad state that Hollywood is in. What I find most frustrating is that a lot of movies have the potential to be really good movies, but for whatever reason producers are hell-bent on running them through the mud.

The plot of Knowing begins in 1959 at William Dawes Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. A time capsule containing students' drawings of their ideas of the future is buried and set to be ceremoniously opened 50 years later. A girl named Lucinda Embry contributes a page full of seemingly random digits. She never actually finishes her work because she is stopped from completing the page by her teacher who thinks that Lucinda has wasted time on her contribution but feels compelled to put it into the capsule anyways. That night Lucinda is found in a school closet. Her fingers are bloodied from scratching at the door, and she complains about hearing voices.

These “random” numbers find their way to Nicolas Cage’s character, John Koestler, a professor of astrophysics at MIT who takes interest in them and realizes the numbers represent the dates and death tolls of every major disaster over the past fifty years, and suggest three disasters still to come.

Now that’s pretty interesting. You would think this movie might at least be decent, but let me go further. There is a scene where Koestler is giving a lecture on astrophysics and in doing so presents the two opposing views of the origin or the genetic make-up of the universe: 1) random chance and 2) intelligent design with a purpose. The interesting thing was that while he is presenting the idea of random chance, Koestler realizes in the middle of his lecture the logical conclusion of this worldview, namely, that if things happen simply because of random chance then life is completely meaningless.

That was a powerful scene. That is until the next couple of lines. When Koestler has this amazing epiphany and looks like he is about to jump off of a bridge because of it, a student interrupts him and asks, “What do you believe professor?” I thought to myself, “This is a perfect opportunity to say something profound that would add depth and character to the movie.” Instead, Koestler replies, “Sh** happens.” Are you kidding me!?! A bunch of punk teenagers smoking pot in their basement could have come up with that line. Did the Wayne brothers write the script? 50 cent? Forrest Gump? Someone was actually paid to write that line!?

Why am I even mentioning any of this? Is it because I don’t want you to rent this movie. True, I don’t want you to rent this movie, but that’s not the reason. The reason is that it kills me is that the writer had a compelling storyline with the potential to explore a serious life question in which anyone would be interested. The question is “What is the meaning of life?” (Do we have any purpose?) One’s worldview and belief system determines that question. People often don’t think about the ramifications of where their beliefs will lead. In much the same that Koestler realized where his belief system led him, the writer could have had a profound effort on his viewers if he guided them the same way. He had an opportunity to wrestle with that question in an entertaining manner but all we got was “Sh** happens,”- which is a good description of this movie.

Some of my suggestions for the movie: 1) Lose the alien bit. The whole alien from other plants with supernatural or superhuman abilities is a cheap cop-out (Unless the aliens are giant robots that transform into cool vehicles and use big guns to fight each other with Megan Fox as one of the characters, I don’t want to see aliens anymore, at least for a very long time). Why couldn’t the writer just leave the little girl (Lucinda Embry) at the beginning of the movie with the gift of prophecy instead of aliens (the whispers) whispering in her head?

2) Allow Koestler to make a difference. After Koestler finds out the nature of the “random” numbers, he intervenes on the projected next event and actually saves some lives. As a result, the death toll numbers on the paper “magically” change right on the page. Take out the solar flare that wipes out the entire earth at the end of the movie and replace it with a much smaller scale catastrophe that Koestler again intervenes but this time he saves Rose Byrne’s character, Diana Wayland (the daughter of Lucinda Embry and a single mother herself. Once Diana is saved, ALL the numbers of the page disappear entirely. This is a symbol of their fate not yet known. Koestler’s only conclusion is that although things may seem determined, their decisions do matter in the end and that life does have meaning and purpose. Part of life is figuring out what that purpose is. Koestler and Wayland fall in love and begin a new life together with their kids. At the same time, the ending of the movie shows another kid on the opposite coast writing down some “random” numbers at her elementary school. Then, the scene fades out.

3) Think about the character development of Koestler. At the beginning of the movie he is clearly still bothered by the loss of his wife. His sister, Allison Koestler (Adrienne Pickering), hints at his broken relationship with his father, who happens to be a pastor. At the end of the movie, Koestler returns home after watching his son (and a couple of bubby rabbits) get taken away by aliens to a safe place. There, at his parent’s house, he looks at his father and simply says “hello” and they all embrace into oblivion. How touching.

Instead of that non-since, how about all the supernatural events and “random” numbers written by a crazy elementary girl: A) Koestler changes to a semi-determinist/intelligent design/purpose from “Sh** happens” guy, realizing that there is purpose in life and what brings meaning is figuring that out and pursuing it. B) Koestler moves on with his life with a new woman believing it’s okay to be happy in a new relationship and even his son benefits from this, C) there is also reconciliation with his father when he realizes that all he’s been preaching throughout the years might be true and that it’s silly to hold grudges when life has meaning, D) and there are no freaking aliens to take his son away. Tell me that wouldn’t be 100 times better than the actual movie. And I just made that up in the time I wrote this blog!

Now do I really care that much about this movie. No. But it bothers me when there are the components to making a good movie and “professional” can’t get it right. Where time and time again I get disappointed in Hollywood. I remember days where quality movies were being pumped out like Hannah Montana CDs. I understand the process from script to screen is a long tedious one where a 100 different people have to get their hands all over it so by the time it gets to the end product, it looks nothing like the original idea. I guess I’ll have to become a Harry Potter fan. Wait, … I’m just not there yet. Let me see the second Chipmunks movie first.