Who, how, and why you love
Each member of U2 interviewed in USA Today:
"This is a gigantic and preposterous analogy," [Bono] warns. "In the days after Hiroshima, people were never so close to their families and never so hedonistic. The world was a much more fragile place when they saw what the splitting of the atom could do. Suddenly, the world had a sell-by date, perhaps. This album was no time for philosophizing. This is about who do you love, how do you love, why do you love."
Kate Bowman: Improving Christian dialogue on film
My friend Kate Bowman knocked one out of the park in Catapult magazine last month.Read more
Peter T. Chattaway clobbers "Kinsey"
Mainstream reviews of Kinsey are commenting on the "hysterical, right-wing, Christian protest" of the film.Read more
More Fun with Film Review Editing!
Here are more paragraphs from recently published Christian film reviews. Get out your red pen and respond in the comments section.
Remember, the goal here is to emphasize the need for better film writing, not to ridicule anybody or put down any particular online review site.
The first ste of excerpts is from a new review of Sideways. I won't say who wrote it. I won't say who published it. I'll just say it proved very difficult to read because I kept wanting to wake up the editor.
Here's the opening paragraph:
The universe in which Alexander Payne films tend to exist in a little bubble of truth. They are heartfelt, comedic, hopeful and tragic—often at the same time. The first of his films I encountered was the dark comedy Election; second being About Schmidt. Now my history with this very talented filmmaker has expanded to Sideways, a coming of age story for old people.
And after the routine plot description, here's the review's home-stretch:
The story here is a quiet one. It doesn’t seek to be anything deeper than what it is, and that in and of itself makes it all the more resonating. None of the characters do anything that cries out as a false move. Jack’s womanizing is despicable to a fault, but he’s just so likeable that you can’t help but liking him for it. Thomas Haden Church, who is still largely unknown—save for his role on Wings (and to more astute viewers he is the embodiment of ignorance in George of the Jungle as Lyle)—is a great asset to this film. Other well-known actors including George Clooney wanted the part, but Payne was wise in going with someone recognizable but largely unknown. It lends a hand in his has-been status as an actor.
Paul Giamatti is the movie’s new everyman, in that he looks like it. He has a good self-pitying quality to him. He’s not hard to love either as his Miles cries out for a hug, though he doesn’t have it as bad as he makes it out to be. Throughout the film, he grows as a man. Change is capable, even in your 40’s, and Giamatti is one of the few actors out there that can make a statement like that and make us believe.
The two women, Sandra Oh as Stephanie and Virginia Madsen as Maya, are quite enticing. They embody strong independent women but are still sensitive enough to see the good traits in both the men they get involved with. I guess you could say that this a film about the performances than the story itself, but I think in discussing the characters you hopefully get a sense of how well-written and thought out the script by Alexander Payne and writing partner Jim Taylor is (working from a novel written by Rex Pickett). They have a good ear for dialogue, never betraying the characters for an interesting plot point.
The story is shot deftly and simply. There is a sequence of the four characters sitting against the setting sun in the hills—very beautiful to behold. Payne is an expert filmmaker. I didn’t mind About Schmidt, although it was a little too meandering (then again it’s about a guy in a Winnebago). Not so here. He creates the right pace for the story. Needless to say a movie like this seems to only come around once every few years.
There are problems from Sentence #1, obviously. There are little flubs like "Change is capable." Some sentences are just painful: "He’s just so likeable that you can’t help but liking him for it."
What else do you see?
Okay, Round Two.
Here's an excerpt from a recently published review of The Incredibles.
One of the most powerful mediums in Hollywood recently has been animation. Starting awhile back, from Titan AE to The Iron Giant, animation has been used to tell powerful stories that are filled with spiritual and moral themes. We have seen the medium cross over from children to adults with these films and the likes of the Shrek films. Now, new from one of the founders in the style, is The Incredibles, and to say the least, this movie is simply INCREDIBLE! I don’t recall the last time I have had so much fun at the movies as I did at my screening of The Incredibles. The concept blends computer animation and comic-book-hero scenarios to come up with a wonderful, thought-provoking story. The Incredibles takes on the political correctness of today and slams it through the door with the velocity that some of us have been yearning for, for quite some time.
Whoo, boy. Off to a rough start. Here's some more.
It doesn’t stop there though, from Holly Hunter to Samuel L. Jackson, you could say this story is star-powered.
The story starts out with the superheroes doing what most superheroes do: saving people and things. Along the way, Mr. Incredible saves an individual who was attempting suicide, but there was some property damage and also that individual sues Mr. Incredible for an injury he received. That opens up the door for all kinds of law suits, and the heroes just can’t keep up. As a result the court systems ban all superheroes from using their gifts and talents and force them into obscurity.
Now just in that paragraph is a huge sampling of issues that are addressed in this movie from a social perspective. There are these and more, but thankfully the movie instead focuses more on the love of family and the need for people to do what they are called to do in order to have fulfillment and purpose. For many, this is the concept that we are all gifted in some way, and we ought to be using those gifts to better society. Only when using those gifts, will we be fulfilled and will our families be fulfilled.
I'll stop there. Any editors looking for some exercise? You might want to play the sleuth, find the sites that published these reviews, and volunteer your talents.
Or, you could always edit some of MY reviews. I can always use the help.
Sideways (2004)
A friend of mine is aghast at the critical acclaim for Sideways, the latest film from Alexander Payne. She's upset because the movie is populated by characters who are self-absorbed, promiscuous, and willing to support each other in severe misbehavior.
I understand her objections, but I don't think Sideways is condoning misbehavior. I believe we're supposed to wince, and sometimes laugh, in dismay — and even in affection — as these characters, who do have their strengths, blunder their way into all kinds of trouble. And beneath all of the tomfoolery and trouble, these characters have beating hearts and redemptive qualities as well.
The story of Sideways follows two friends, Jack (Thomas Haden Church) and Miles (Paul Giamatti), on a road trip during the week before Jack's wedding. Miles wants to enjoy this last "guys' week out" by touring wineries and savoring life, even as he groans over his failure as a writer and his disillusionment with love. Jack, on the other hand, wants to spend the week getting laid with any woman who will give him the time of day.
These are not characters we admire for their morality. They're fools for whom patient viewers will develop some affection. We hope to see the Connoisseur and the Neanderthal learn something before it's too late. By the end of their reckless and problem-prone journey, one of them clearly hasn't learned a thing. The other, well . . . let's just say there's a glimmer of hope, but not much.
Coming after Election and About Schmidt, Sideways is the first of Payne's films in which we have the chance to really care for the characters, because he reins in his strident satire better than before. We laugh in dismay and sympathy more often than we're asked to laugh in contempt.
Still, it is true that Payne continues to express contempt for certain varieties of people, while showing an extravagant measure of patience and grace toward his snobbish, self-absorbed "heroes." (There is a scene late in the film that is its most outrageous, but also its most cruel.) As in About Schmidt, the characters that he sympathizes with get special treatment, while those who are more simple-minded are also portrayed as despicable beasts. This is a disappointing weakness in a film of surprisingly warm, human, and insightful moments.
One of the two remarkable strengths of the film is Paul Giamatti's performance. Giamatti just gets better and better with each role he plays. I loved him in last year's American Splendor, but he's even better here as Miles, who, like some fine wines, may reach his life's "peak" later than most others do.
And he's working with a fantastic supporting cast, including Virginia Madsen in her most radiant performance, playing the one woman in the world who speaks Miles' language.
Thomas Haden Church is also strong as the thick-headed Jack. Jack is as dangerous and destructive in his reckless ignorance as Jude Law's Closer character is in his malevolent selfishness. He's a despicable character portrayed in far too forgiving a light here. But while he's insanely promiscuous and heartless toward women (especially a winery worker memorably played by Sandra Oh), he does at least try to muster some understanding for his despondent friend.
The other virtue of the film is Payne's delicate use of wine as a metaphor throughout the script... a wonderful way of phrasing what he wants to say about human beings.
This is a film that offers some quiet insight. But you may find that, despite moments of sweetness and wisdom, the characters' misbehavior leaves a bitter aftertaste.
Sideways Should Earn Paul Giamatti Another Nomination
I finally caught up with Alexander Payne's latest film, Sideways, tonight and liked it much, much better than his last film, About Schmidt.Read more
House of Flying Daggers: Don't Miss It
Film critics are beginning to groan about this being an interesting but less-than-satisfying year for movies. I've got to agree. Usually, the Oscar season reveals a handful of movies that are worth revisiting time and time again. This year, there's been one disappointment after another, with only a scattered few titles worthy of multiple viewings. And most of those are still significantly flawed.
Usually, there's at least one film that has me shouting from the rooftops at the end of the year. This year, there are a handful I'm recommending again and again, but they're not the kind of films that make me revisit my all-time-favorites lists.
One of those "keepers" is Hero, which is definitely the most enthralling film of the year visually. Its politics are controversial and its characters are more symbolic than specific, and thus while it remains thrilling in repeated viewings, those thrills are primarily aesthetic and intellectual, not at all emotional.
So it was with great hope and anticipation that I approached House of Flying Daggers for a special advance screening at the Seattle Art Museum, hosted by Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News, and marking the release of the new volume of film reviews by the folks at the world-famous Scarecrow Video.
My review will appear at Christianity Today Movies soon. For now, all I can say is that the film delivers on the promise of Hero's spellbinding visuals, strikes a much more comical tone (for an hour, anyway), brings the martial arts scenes even deeper into the realm of dance, and features the strongest performance of Zhang Ziyi's career. (This time, she's not a whining, adolescent ninny like she was in Crouching Tiger and Hero.)
Like Hero, the film is also full of unexpected plot twists, some of which are thrilling, and others that ... well ... you'll see my review soon.
Suffice it to say that I prefer Hero, but despite its last-act flaws, House of Flying Daggers is still well worth seeing for its performances, the controlled chaos of its battles, and its phenomenal visual spectacle.
The best thing to know before you see it: Its Japanese title is The Lovers, which is a much, much better title. The title House of Flying Daggers misleads the audience about where their focus should be.
Which has more make-believe: Kinsey or Finding Neverland?
Here's this week's edition of Film Forum, with more than you need to know about this week's new releases.
Tom Hanks will star in The DaVinci Code
Looks like this decent piece of commercial fiction, full of historical innaccuracies and gross misrepresentations of Christ and Christian history, is going to be in the news for a long time to come.Read more
U2 in The New York Times
U2 wins raves in The New York Times today, and look great in the photo that accompanies the article. (That photo's sure a lot more interesting than the album cover, which is the most unremarkable in the band's history.)Read more