Good News Film Reviews

Interview on Wielding the Sword of the Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:00:00 +0000

On Tuesday, I was interviewed by author Donald James Parker on his blog radio show Wielding the Sword of the Spirit in support of my book You Are What You See: Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens. We discussed Christian film and a variety of other topics.

Thanks to Donald James Parker for inviting me on his program.

Newsflash: Hollywood is Disconnected From Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:00:00 +0000

The title of the article says it all:

Sacred Mystery: Blockbuster Ratings For ‘The Bible’ Confound Hollywood

Now and then a right-wing critic will come out of the woodwork to fantasize about some imaginary silent majority of viewers hungry for inspiring, all-ages popular entertainment. But if there was some vast, under-served market for bible stories, then, obviously, Hollywood would be producing them.

Read the original article

Seriously? I honestly can't tell if writer Daniel Wattenberg is being snarky or stupid.

It's not as if the big budget (respectful) Christian film thing doesn't work dang near every time it is tried.

The Greatest Story Ever Told is called that for a reason. It was around long before Hollywood and it will be around long after Hollywood is gone.

On a separate note, I want to hereby announce that I am no longer taking complaints on my rather loose relationship with proper grammar. Wattenberg, writing in The Washington Times gets away with this:

Pervaded as Hollywood is by near-Randians, it will, naturally, surprise some that it ultimately fell to an outsider — fellow by the name of John Aglialoro, a fitness equipment executive without a prior film credit to his name — to bring Ayn Rand’s own defining work “Atlas Shrugged” to the screen independently, after his efforts to secure backing for the project within Hollywood fell short after 20 years, a span which perhaps gives some idea of the sheer numbers of interested prospective collaborators a patient Mr. Aglialoro must have had to work his way through — Hollywood Randians, perhaps, who felt called by Rand’s powerful source material but couldn’t quite commit in the end to throwing themselves into the great work of producing the first screen adaptation of her enduringly popular literary monument to the spirit of free enterprise.

That is one sentence. It may be grammatically correct for all I know (and I don't). If this is acceptable for a major publication then the hack and slack grammar I use is hereby fine.

Taken 2 (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
No.

Director: Olivier Megaton
Written by: Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen
Starring: Liam Neeson, Famke Janssen, Maggie Grace and DB Sweeney

Rated PG-13 for violence and sensuality

Watch or Rent This Movie Here

Kidnap my family once, shame on you. Kidnap my family twice – well, that’s just the stuff of stupid Hollywood sequels.

In Taken, Post-Soviet Euro-trashy bad guys kidnap Qui-Gon Jinn’s daughter. In this silly sequel, they kidnap Qui-Gon Jinn and his wife Jean Grey. I assume in the planned Taken 3 they will kidnap his dog.

The first film was stock, predictable stuff. It wasn’t genre-bending or clever, it was just a solid action flick promoted by a threatening line reading from Liam Neeson “I have a particular set of skills…” This follow up is a hollow, senseless and undisguised money grab. The plot is ridiculous; the villains, two-dimensional, even the action sequences, are tedious.

Do not spend time or money on this movie because it only exists to waste both.

The reason Hollywood makes thoughtless sequels like this is because we keep paying to see them. Stop the vicious circle and avoid cynical movies such as this like the plague.

Related Reviews:
Liam Neeson movies
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Batman Begins (2005)

End of Watch (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
No.

Director/Writer: David Ayer
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick and Frank Grillo

Rated R for violence, language, sexual references and drug use.

Watch or Rent This Movie Here

Brian (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Michael Peña) are a pair of LAPD patrolmen who, when not accidentally uncovering international crime, wisecrack at their superiors and hold snappy, charming conversations in their patrol car. Most of this is captured by the officers themselves through the small cameras they have attached to their uniforms.This is against protocol,and for no reason other than the director, David Ayer, thinking it would give a point-of-view look at the work of the LAPD (it doesn’t).

Brian is The White Cop and Mike is The Not White Cop. I know this is the case because over and over Mike and Brian talk about how Brian is white and Mike is not white. In 2013, in Los Angeles, apparently this is rare enough for it to warrant multiple mentions.

White Cop is a former Marine and is referred to as being exceptionally smart. He has a great girlfriend Janet (Anna Kendrick) who happens to have a great job and is loving and kind. Not White Cop has a wife and kids. Not White Cop has to ask the meaning of words and dismisses anything that involves him thinking too hard. He also has a Not White wife who doesn't have a great job but she does have a wonderful scene where she reveals her Not White husband’s sexual proclivities. Not White Cop later recounts a tale where he is stuck under his Not White in-law’s bed while the two have ‘freaky’ sex. Got it. White Cop = smart, clean, thoughtful. Not White Cop = stupid freaky sex beast.

***Spoiler Alert***

White Cop and Not White Cop bumble their way to a Mexican cartel member and a boatload of cash and guns. Following this interaction, the two return to mocking their superiors and fellow officers. They take jabs at each other and comment to their cameras about how their work is difficult.

White Cop and Not White Cop then, of course, rescue children from a house fire and, of course, are rewarded with the Medal of Valor.

The story could have continued to unfold in a logical fashion, developing characters with a building sense of impending doom from the violence these men face on a daily basis. No such luck. Ayer, who also wrote the script, has White Cop and Not White Cop uncover an illegal alien trafficking safe house. ICE agents descend on the house and take over the crime scene. White and Not White Cops are told by an ICE agent that they have uncovered a safe house being run by a Mexican cartel and they should “lay low” for a while due to the risk of reprisals.

White Cop and Not White Cop later perform a seemingly innocuous welfare check on an elderly woman. They randomly pick this stop from a list of open cases. This RANDOM STOP turns up revealing that the woman is dead and her home has been turned into a torture chamber/drug storage house for the same Mexican cartel that White and Not White Cop had crossed earlier. These cops can't seem to not trip over the pesky cartel.

Based on three random stops the cartel green lights the assassination of the two beat cops. Which makes sense, because if an international criminal organization wants to worm their way into a city, murdering low level beat cops is the best way to get that done.

A group of Latino gang members from central casting are brought on to shoot the cops. They shoot the cops. White Cop being the white cop gets to survive his wounds. Not White Cop, being not white, dies sacrificing himself for White Cop.

This being a Hollywood movie the Latino gang members from central casting are then gunned down standing in a straight line in the middle of an alley by the LAPD. Just like it happens in real life.

***Spoilers End***

The bottom line is this, if you can ignore the lazy racism, illogical plotting and slim character development, you may find some moments of interesting action and some cute chunks of dialog. If that sounds like a fun night, have at it. Most people should have better things to do with their spare time.

Related Reviews:
Jake Gyllenhaal movies
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Zodiac (2007)

Star Wars Rock - Interjections

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:36:00 +0000

It is official, everyone on the Internet needs to get a hobby.

The Master (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
Only if you're a film geek.

Writer/Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Jesse Plemons

Rated R for sexual content, graphic nudity and language

Watch or Rent This Movie Here

Paul Thomas Anderson is the best director of this generation. There is no one better at consistently pulling Oscar-winning performances from actors. I argue there is also no one better at visual themes and scene construction. He is the true heir to the great directors of previous generations.

This film carries all of the potency and power of Anderson’s previous work. The detailed beauty of the film is almost worth a recommendation. The same can be said of the great performances by his cast Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams. He has put together an arresting film about a lost soul who is drawn into a fledgling cult. Unfortunately, Anderson has all of this brilliance but forgot to make it mean anything.

Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is a mentally disturbed World War II navy vet with a drinking problem. He becomes a department store photographer and in his spare time he concocts alcoholic brews from whatever he finds laying around, paint thinner, fuel, anything. Being a drunk, he ruins this gig and descends into picking cabbage with migrants. During this period, one of his concoctions poisons a fellow laborer and Quell is chased off. He becomes a stowaway on a yacht. Unbeknownst to Quell, the ship belongs to Writer, doctor, nuclear physicist , theoretical philosopher and “hopelessly inquisitive man”, Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman).

Dodd is a thinly veiled caricature of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology cult. Dodd’s self-constructed theology is call The Cause. Its tenants are very similar to those of Scientology, including adherents being subjected to “processing”. Processing is a hypnotic interviewing technique where Dodd questions and badgers his subject while also playing control games with their minds. He makes Quell say his name repetitively until the words simply fizzle into meaningless words. He challenges Quell to discuss horrifying childhood trauma without blinking – every time he blinks they start over. The processing scenes between Dodd and Quell are captivating and unsettling.

Dodd quickly takes Quell under his protection and treats the desperate man as a fix-er-up hobby. Dodd constantly remarks that Quell acts like a beast and refers to him in the way a father would talk to an errant child. All the while Quell does as he is told and attempts to enjoy the ride. The pair becomes a duel between nature and nurture. Quell is the bitter truth of our nature rebelling against the elitist Dodd's attempt at nurturing him towards perfection.

Anderson lays out some great questions for him to answer, but fails to investigate them fully. This leads to a narrative without much force behind it. He has masterfully constructed scenes and performances but they do not lead to anything. This is unsatisfying and frankly confusing. Most audiences will not make it past the first hour of the film due to this lack of focus.

Another issue with the film is Anderson’s wandering style. He has no problem moving abruptly through a character’s life with little explanation. This is one of the hallmarks of his style that usually strangely works. Here he is too presumptuous. For example, Quell’s pre-Dodd life is given in a jerky, almost disconnected fashion. While this thematically represents how Quell lived, it is also very hard to grasp, in particular for unsophisticated audiences. There is an assumption by Anderson we will care, which is fair. At the beginning you can throw many things at an audience and they will go along because they assume you’re leading them to a specific place. Anderson fails to deliver on this promise early on. This shows an arrogance or some other kind of disconnect coming from Anderson which most audiences are not going to find the patience for.

In the end I cannot recommend this film. If you’re a film geek or have a love for Paul Thomas Anderson’s previous work, you will find much to adore. The average viewer will find this annoyingly disjointed and terribly slow.

Worldview: Quell has his worldview constructed for him by Dodd. Dodd’s metaphysical narrative is simple. We are transitory souls moving through time by passing from one body form to another (lives). Our true spiritual selves h.ave been corrupted and hidden by an external alien force. Man needs to deal with his past traumas from previous lives, perhaps spanning trillions of years into history, in order to elevate himself to his former perfection. I am not a student of Scientology, but I believe this is not far from their worldview. There are certainly elements there of the usual New age mindset.

Even while he subordinates himself under this man-made theology, Quell continues to speak of God when he curses. When he yells “Goddammit!” I found it striking because it exposes that he never denied the real living God even while living lie of The Cause. Deep in his soul, Quell still knew the truth. This was perhaps incidental to what Anderson was intending, but is there just the same.

Cautions: There is plenty of full frontal nudity, sexual activity, language and substance abuse. Quell is a drunk who is given to juvenile sexual trysts and isn't above molesting a mound of sand. Yes, I said sand.

Anderson has this reoccurring image of Quell fawning over the form of a naked women built out of sand on the beach. She’s a kind of sand sex goddess, I’m not entirely sure, it is all quite vague. In contrast to this perfected image that washes into the sea are the numerous real naked women who populate Dodd’s world. Throughout the movie we are presented with nude women. To Anderson’s credit they are real women with real bodies. He highlights all of their flab, stretch marks, rolls and sagging breasts.

In other words, this is not a film you want to watch with small children running around.

Related Review:
Another Paul Thomas Anderson film
There Will Be Blood (2007)

Looper (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
A weak yes.

Director: Rian Johnson
Written by: Rian Johnson
Starring: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels

Rated R for violence, language, sexuality/nudity and drug content

Watch or Rent This Movie Here

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) lives in a world of time travel. Most people in his time don’t know this is the case. Time travel is something that has yet to be invented, this does not stop folks from the future messing with the past however. Joe fuels a fast lifestyle and drug habit by working as a ‘looper’ for the citizens of the future. Poor saps who upset a criminal organization in the future are sent back to Joe’s time and loopers, such as Joe, gun them down in an efficient execution. This assures the target from the future is removed, without the complications of a body or other evidence. This set up works out neatly for Joe until he is asked to gun down his future self (Bruce Willis). Younger Joe's future self (let's call him Older Joe) escapes his execution and the chase begins. Younger Joe tries to stop Older Joe as he slowly tracks down and kills the ‘modern day’ crime syndicate that will mark him for execution in the future.

Writer/Director Rian Johnson (Brick) has the chops to handle a layered time travel film in an accessible but challenging fashion. For the most part, Johnson delivers. The main portion of his script is often predictable, but still engaging. The Younger Joe/Older Joe juxtaposition is an interesting take – Older Joe is rightly annoyed by his less wise, less respectful younger self. Younger Joe can’t get his head around the relationship and treats Older Joe as more of a disposable father-figure than an older, wiser version of himself.

Johnson’s handling of the complex relationship between the two Joes is unique and full of potential. He begins to deliver on this potential by cleverly displaying how Younger Joe originally kills his older self, goes through his life becoming Older Joe (who knows what is coming) and using that memory of killing himself to keep himself (Older Joe) alive at that point and being able to escape. Sound complicated? It is, yet Johnson found a way to show it and make it completely logical.

Unfortunately, there is a problem and it isn’t a small one.

Johnson doesn’t have confidence in his complex time travel tale. He takes what is a carefully constructed future universe and plot and spoils it by inserting a completely unneeded and distracting subplot involving a child with supernatural powers. You read that correctly. Out of nowhere Johnson introduces a child with horrifying psychic powers who is being protected by a woman (Emily Blunt) living in a distant farm house.

The child subplot derails the original tale and turns a sharp genre film into a M. Night Shyamalanesque sham. What should be a complex look at the current/future self – free will vs. fate argument devolves into a meaningless mess as Johnson is forced to abandon his initial narrative to deal with the loose ends caused by this unrelated addition.

***Spoiler Alert***

The inclusion of the psychic kid brings Younger/Older Joe into a strange place. Older Joe, knows what the future holds. This includes knowing that the psychic kid grows up to be a monstrous crime boss. Johnson attempts to utilize this strange point-of-view to put Older Joe in a horrible situation. Knowing what he knows, is Older Joe right to assassinate the child before he can commit his future crime? This is the classic argument of going back in time and killing Hitler. This is an interesting proposition but it is too large to be hung on a preexisting narrative. It should be its own story instead of being a side-issue. This is evidenced by the lack of dimension in the psychic kid. The child does not retain any discernible personality, he is not really ‘human’. He is a thing, a plot point which needs to be dealt with rather than a likable child the audience can come to understand and therefore want to survive.

Johnson is a very strong director, but has shown with this and his previous film, The Brothers Bloom, that he has loose restraint on his storytelling. He needs a script editor who will reign in his needlessly grand inclinations. If he had remained true to his original narrative, this would have been an exceptional film. Thanks to his lack of focus, he has produced an unfortunately splintered and forgettable movie.

Related Reviews:
Bruce Willis movies
Pulp Fiction (1994)
RED (2010)

Scott Nehring Presenting at GATE 3 Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:00:00 +0000

On Saturday, February 2nd I will be speaking to Hollywood professionals at the GATE3 Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on changing the tone of Hollywood films

GATE (Global Alliance of Transformational Entertainment) is a non-profit organization founded by actor Jim Carrey and spiritualist Eckhart Tolle to bring together creative minds from across the entertainment industry to work on bringing positive and uplifting content to films, television and other media. I was invited by GATE to discuss story structure during the Transformational Story Conference portion of the event. I will speak to a crowd of professional screenwriters, producers and directors. Here is the kicker, to my knowledge, I will be the only representative of Christianity at the event.

Why would I present at an event that seemingly promotes New Age beliefs?

I’m a firm believer that one of the biggest problems in our society is that we have cut off those we disagree with. I am certainly guilty of this - particularly in the comment section when people aren't polite. Instead of shunning each other, we need to keep talking and find common ground. I believe we can work with those in the New Age movement on things like producing films with less violence, or having fewer demeaning productions. We may be rivals on some significant issues, but we don’t need to be enemies.

I find it interesting that some Christians think that going to an event like this is the same as supporting all of their beliefs. Moreover, that I shouldn't go at all. I don't get that, since when are Christians NOT supposed to engage and inspire?

I appreciate any prayers of support.

- Scott Nehring

Click here to buy your copy of

You Are What You See:

Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

A Snowy Night on "Catskill Park"

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:00:00 +0000

By Wayne Johnson

Over one year ago I started a VFX company with the usual suspects. We did a test composite for a science fiction 3D film on the moon. In three days we did three complex shots and impressed our new clients. The last year has been so busy I have not had the time to spin any yarns about our exploits on that film.

Over one year later I find myself on location in New Hampshire supervising the VFX shots on the new film Catskill Park. I feel very privileged to be working with a very experienced crew, most who have rubbed shoulders with the heavies in the industry and worked with some of the current top talent.

We are currently being buried under about a half-foot of snow or more as the production preps for tomorrow. I find it very strange and somewhat lonely, this being the very first production I have worked on where I am not the director or the producer.

At this time I can’t asses what I have learned only that I’m sure as I reflect in the following weeks I’ll have gained a tidbit of information. I’m trying to build connections and make new friends, but as some of you know, I have been so busy for the last 5 or 6 years I barley have time for the friends that I do have. Making new ones is not a skill I have cultivated.

Tonight, as the crew decides the best course of action for the remainder of the production, I work on compositing a sign that the art department could not prep. They hired a local kid to paint the sign and after taking $25 for brushes and paint he ditched out and left the sign unfinished and unfixable.

So, they turned to me and we shot it with tracking markers. However, the Long GOP (group of pictures) format the Sony F3 shoots on is terrible for tracking and compositing. Long GOP is a joke, and not a real solution for a VFX film.

The cool part is I have been able to do test color grades for the director and DP and also work virtually with Adam Natrop. It is an interesting time for filmmaking, we have the power to change the way the whole industry thinks about making a movie.

One last little note, I find it strange that no one on the crew has any real experience or understanding how to make a VFX movie. I figured everyone on the East Cost would get it, but they are very new to the concept, good for me and my team I guess.

Wayne's commentaries can also be found on his site New Discourses On Art.

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

Artists Who Are Conservative Over Conservative Artists

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:00:00 +0000

The Daily Caller's Matthew K. Lewis discusses cultural conservatives and offers some good insight the future of the movement. As with my arguments for Christians to be artists who are Christian instead of branding themselves "Christian Artists", Lewis points out that the key to cultural change is not done by forcing agendas.

The good news for cultural conservatives is that a new generation, aided by new technology, might finally conspire to change things. Young conservatives like R.J. Moeller — the man who brought comedian Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager together — are dedicating their lives to ideas and culture, not overt partisanship.

As technology lowers the barriers of entry, removing power from the gatekeepers, it is entirely possible that artists who happen to be conservative (as opposed to “conservative artists”) will have an easier time breaking into the culture. It might be hard, for example, to sell a record label on signing you, but what if record labels become irrelevant? — what if talent and the ability to produce and sell electronic music render them moot?

Come back when you're done.

It is up to you to change the culture
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Business Plan, Just Another Story

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:00:00 +0000

By Wayne Johnson

Over the last 11 months I have embarked on a journey through the world of Entertainment Business. It is not a very strange world but it is a very complex one. There are many areas of the business side that are the same for every business, but then there is the entertainment sides where some major differences come to play.

However, one of the major constants that I have learned is that in the end, what ever it is you are doing you are dealing with people, people who are interested in different aspects of the project.

Business people are primarily interested in doing good business. They are interested in ROI. They are interested on cost projections, marketing plans and the core competencies of the business owners. They want to make a profit and not throw away their money.

Like a good script, the business plan is the road map of how you plan to achieve this for the people investing in your business. You need to write it with a good “Hook” to sell the idea, then the first act of the plan must lay out all of the characters and where they have been and where they want to go. Then as we move to act two you need to give them some meat. Show them the ups and the downs of the business. Introduce the bad guys and the allies and show where the conflict will come from.

Finally in act three you must build to the climax and show them the numbers. Let them see how much it will cost to start up, market and sell the product or service and then immediately after the climax! Show them that if all of these things are done the way you have planned and the money is spent in the right places, they can make their money back with profit!

And like all good stories wrap up the resolution quickly and let them think about all you have said by reminding them of why you told the story in the first place.

So all you creative types out there, get off your duff and start working out how you will make a living with your craft, how you can excite others to join in your quest by offering them a chance to succeed with you. And the business plan, well that is nothing but another story, well told.

Wayne's commentaries can also be found on his site New Discourses On Art.

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

Tolkien's Son Despises The Hobbit

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:00:00 +0000

My Father's "Eviscerated" Work - Son of Hobbit Scribe J.R.R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out

This is a fascinating read. We rarely think of the torment that comes with success, fame and fortune. I think we also don't appreciate the heavy filtering that happens when rich literary works are adapted to the screen.

"The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

The link heads to Worldcrunch where I found the story, but the original interview belongs to Le Monde.

It is up to you to change the culture
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Better Late Than Never Liam

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:00:00 +0000

Liam Neeson has made an admission to the Catholic Herald which is rare for an A (A-) List actor - all of this sexual content in entertainment and in culture has drained the act itself less special, less meaningful.

Speaking to the Catholic Herald, Neeson, who has two teenage sons, Micheal, 17, and Daniel, 16, explained: "I'd hate to be a kid now, because we're all inundated with so much information about sexuality, coming at us from everywhere – the media, the advertising billboards, just everywhere – and it must be so confusing for them."

"There's a problem that, if you become over-familiar with something, it moves from the sacred to almost the profane," he said.

"The act is very, very special. It's full of mystery and wonder, and I'd hate us all to get to the stage where we just treat it lightly, because it deserves more than that."

Last year he thoughtfully pondered to the UK Press Association "It’s a really interesting part and I get to go to bed with Olivia Wilde!" when explaining the intricacies of his new role in The Third Person.

Forgiving that unfortunate statement, I would think the Catholic Herald journalist followed up by asking if Neeson would suggest people ignore his film Kinsey or other moments in his career.

"There's a problem that, if you become over-familiar with something, it moves from the sacred to almost the profane," he said.

It is up to you to change the culture
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:00:00 +0000

Should I see it?
An unenthusiastic yes.

Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: Fran Walsh, PhilippaBoyens, Peter Jackson and Guilermo del Toro
Actors: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis, Ian Holm, James Nesbit, Ken Stott and Graham McTavish

Rated PG-13 for violence, and frightening images

Peter Jackson is starting to wade into the George Lucas end of the pool. On the heels of arguably the best, or at least satisfying, cinematic trilogy ever produced, Jackson couldn't leave well enough alone. Like Lucas dragging out his prized gift horse Star Wars out for an unbearable jaunt, Jackson has chosen to risk his fortune on another Tolkien adaptation.

To get right to the point, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not a bad film. In many ways it is a remarkable adaptation. The trouble is that Jackson is very indulgent and doesn't seem to see a need to restrain his vision for the sake of time or story. Jackson delivers a bloated, wandering tale that resembles The Hobbit, but never quite catches the nature or charm of the original work.

His film isn't an adaptation of The Hobbit, rather it is a long-toothed prequel the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Given the technical brilliance of the trilogy, this is a hard trap for Jackson to avoid. Steering clear of looking like he is simply knocking off his previous works should be goal one as the film opens. Jackson instead doubles down on making this film feel like little more than a perfunctory sequel/prequel to a previous success. He unnecessarily drags in Frodo (Elijah Wood) and has Bilbo (Martin Freeman and Ian Holm) spend far too much time in his hovel instead of on the road exploring areas of Middle Earth the audience has never seen.

Jackson made the choice to split/stretch the tale into a full trilogy. This opening film boasts a run time of over 2 1/2 hours. Say what you will, The Hobbit is not a story that takes nearly eight hours to tell on screen, which is how long the full trilogy will last if this first film is any indication - and that's not counting in the obligatory Director's Cut content! All of this time is spent on things not in the original book and culled from other Tolkien sources. This is one of the main reasons the film feels more like a Jackson movie than a Tolkien adaptation.

If you're wondering who that guy is on the right, get used to it.

You'll be asking questions like that for the entire run of the film.

As with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the design work in this film is nearly flawless; the sets, the lighting, the costumes, almost everything is well thought out, and patiently and purposely displayed. After seeing the film, a friend of mine mentioned something that had stuck in his craw. It is now firmly wedged in mine as well. For some reason Jackson decided that only some of the dwarves would look like dwarves. He clearly established their appearance in the trilogy which mimicked traditional perceptions of the fictional race. In this production, Jackson obviously felt that dwarves couldn't look young or like leaders if they retained the usual dwarvish look. Instead of being squat, bulky, puffy-faced miners, the younger dwarves Kili (William Kircher), Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Bofur (James Nesbitt) look more like miniature elves. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) seems to be a vertically-challenged human more than a king of the dwarves. I noticed it when watching the film for the first time and it struck me as odd. Afterward, it has been a point of irritation because it is so inauthentic in what is otherwise a praise-worthy production in regards to design.

The film shines in one particular scene, the classic riddle exchange between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis). Bilbo finds The One True Ring accidentally in a dark, dank cave. The cave's resident Gollum, the Ring's owner, finds Bilbo. The two decide on a simple game where they will tell each other riddles. If Bilbo wins, Gollum will lead him out of the cave. If Gollum wins, he eats Bilbo. This is the only portion of the film which captures the reason why Tolkien's overly episodic and disjointed tale attracts an audience. Tolkien had a clear love and respect not only for Bilbo but also for his language and general attitude. Bilbo is ultimately a classic upright Briton - plenty of custom and easily disturbed by embarrassment and awkwardness. Contrasted against Gollum's slithering, pond-beast demeanor, Bilbo couldn't be more out of his element. It is at this point where the reader, and now the audience get to see the true heroic side of Bilbo. His previous minor victories were accidental. Here, he is challenged to use his wits. Jackson clearly spent a good deal of time designing and executing this scene and does so beautifully. If there was an Oscar for Best Scene (and why isn't there?), this would win by a mile.

The film as a whole is a loud ramble that distracts from its original source. Fans of the original The Lord of the Rings Trilogy who aren't terribly discerning, will find this to be a fun outing. Expect for ponderous and overdrawn moments of Jackson appreciating his own filmmaking skills. I do not think it is possible to watch this without checking your watch at least once.

The bottom line is this: I saw this film in the theater to experience the 48 fps (frames per second) version to see it in action (I won't go into 48fps here, you can get a good idea of what it is all about following this link). When the film was done I wasn't hearing any excited expectation from the folks I saw the film from random strangers nearby. There was quiet discussion about if the film was as awful as some thought. For those who liked the film, there was the question of how in the heck Jackson could possibly stretch this into three full films. When people leave a huge, technical production like this and they are left almost dreading the idea of what the filmmaker is up to - that is a bad sign.

Jedis are top alternative religion in England - time to close down the Kingdom

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:00:00 +0000

I used to be concerned that England had turned into a police state. Considering what has become of its people's think, perhaps this is best for everyone.

The new figures reveal that the lightsabre-wielding disciples are only behind Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in the popularity stakes, excluding non-religious people and people who did not answer.

Following a nationwide campaign, Jedi made it onto the 2001 census, with 390,127 people identifying themselves a decade ago as followers of the fictional Star Wars creed.

Although the number of Jedis has dropped by more than 50 per cent over the past 10 years, they are still the most selected "alternative" faith on the Census, and constitute 0.31% of all people's stated religious affiliation in England and Wales.

Don't bothering with "but America is [insert random negative pseudo-fact here]. We can be adults and look at the pathetic state of England all by itself.

Those lacking the truth (or who can't handle it) will gravitate to whatever feels best, even if they know it is fake. This can be pretending Jedism (is this the proper term?) is acceptable or any nebulous New Age belief which fails to offer any real solution to theological concerns.

The larger point here is the direct influence films have on our philosophy and theology. Films are a means of communication and even seemingly benign works can mislead the weak of mind/spirit.

It is up to you to change the culture
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Video Find: How Motion Pictures Became the Movies 1908-1920

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:00:00 +0000

David Bordwell has an interesting video worth checking out called How Motion Pictures Became the Movies 1908-1920. It is solid film geekery stuff but presented so regular human beings can understand and enjoy as well.

You can find similar stuff on Observations on Film Art. The site design is lousy but they have incredible content - and it's content that counts.

It is up to you to change the culture
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

A Movie You Might Have Missed: About a Boy (2002)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Short Review: A rare creation: a Hugh Grant movie that doesn’t make me have reflux issues.

Buy or Rent This Movie Here

Like any red-blooded American male, I have a natural distaste for Hugh Grant. There is something about that quivering, underweight Brit which makes me search for the remote. Perhaps it is the mumbling line deliveries. Maybe it is his tenancy towards tepid, meaningless puff productions. You know you have a hollow resume when your dalliance with a whore is your most memorable career moment.

In a surprise move, when he wasn’t rutting with a prostitute, Grant managed to make a remarkable movie. About A Boy is shockingly good considering that this slab of vanilla is in the lead. To be honest, Grant does an outstanding job in this film and avoids many of his trademark irritating traits throughout the production. His lines are delivered in a clear, normal manner and he even ekes out some actual emoting.

Will (Grant) is not a man as much as he is a complete waste of space. He has literally nothing to show for his life and is proud of the fact. Will is a clever bit of writing. Peter Hedges’ script does a fantastic job of establishing Will as a human vacuum. His empty lifestyle is supported by his reaping the royalties of a insipid Christmas song he didn't write. Will’s life changes when he gets involved with a boy named Marcus. Marcus’ life is in turmoil due to his suicidal mother Fiona's (Toni Collette) depression. Marcus turns to Will for guidance. Will, Marcus and Fiona develop a strange but fascinating trio of dysfunction.

The cast is stellar in this film. Collette stands out as the ridiculously depressed Fiona. Keeping pace with her is Nicholas Hoult as Marcus. They, along with the hooker maven Hugh Grant, mix well with the deep characters they explore - what a delight to see. Their success can be attributed to Peter Hedges’ insightful script. Hedges firmly defines his characters and allows them space to interact as themselves. This may not sound like much but it is rather rare. Often writers establish basic perimeters for the characters and then play to those limits. Hedges pushes his characters through their interactions and contrasting personalities. This leads to the huge change Will makes towards the end of the movie not feeling forced (as it would in most films). Given the attention to character detail, Will's admittedly obvious transformation comes across as organic and meaningful.

The word meaningful is a good word for this film. The audience walks away from this movie having learned a moral lesson. One does not live for him or herself. We only truly experience life when we live for others. A film that teaches a moral lesson without postmodern whimpering is extremely rare these days. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

As far as Hugh Grant goes, he drifted back into his usual crud after this production. The last I had heard, he’s washing cars at the Playboy Mansion.

Related Reviews:
Toni Collette movies
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Mary and Max (2009)

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

Screenshot: 300

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 02:00:00 +0000

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

A Movie You Might Have Missed: Los Cronocrímenes "Timecrimes" (2007)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Buy or Watch Online Here

Anyone who is into time travel movies will absolutely love this film. Most films dealing with time travel hint at the complications that will logically occur. Back to the Future plays with the cause and effect of actions of the time traveler, while Primer copes with the more personal complications. This film by Spanish writer/director Nacho Vigalondo dives right into the meaty elements of time travel. Vigalondo sets his main character Héctor (Karra Elejalde) into a web of intersecting timelines and a descending parade of motivations from various parties all of which just happen to be the same man. What Vigalondo manages here is a very complicated string of events but he handles them in a digestible way. He does this while providing his audience a fun and thought-provoking film.

If you have ever watched a time travel film and wanted to get deeper into the logical twists, this is a perfect film for you. While Vigalondo is forced to push some choices that don’t pass the smell test in order to keep his plot moving, overall this is an enjoyable film I am always ready to recommend.

Cautions: There is full female nudity and mild violence - all of which is contextual.

Related Reviews:
Time travel movies
12 Monkeys (1995)
Premonition (2007)

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

Anonymous (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
Yes.

Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Written by: John Orloff
Starring: Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave and David Thewlis

Rated PG-13 for mild violence and sexual content.

Rent or Buy This Movie Here

Roland Emmerich, the wildly successful director and producer of such masterworks as Eight Legged Freaks, Independence Day, Universal Solider and 2012 takes time out from being a über-liberal version of Michael Bay to showcase a thin conspiracy tale that Shakespeare is not the author of his own works.

The anti-Shakespeare argument is known as the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. A watered down version of the argument is presented by Derek Jacobi at the opening of the film. My version of his version of the argument is this: William Shakespeare was far too uneducated and unsophisticated to create the works assigned to his name. Billy S. was a commoner and such genius would have to come from the mind of an elite like Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford.

So says the elites.

Hey, isn't Emmerich the same guy who gave us Stargate; a film that essentially promotes the notion that aliens created the pyramids and Egyptian culture (because those dumb Africans were too simple to come up with all of that on their own)?

The theory isn't nonsensical but this film certainly doesn't do anything to produce any evidence or thought other than the snobbish conjecture that someone of low means isn’t capable of genius.

The film is a well-written and acted dramatization of the Oxdordian theory. Edward De Vere, (Rhys Ifans) due to his station and the political and religious restrictions on his life, secretly hires playwright Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto) to put his name to De Vere’s plays. Johnson, a real life and influential playwright in his own right, dislikes the idea of subordinating his own work to another man's plays. This leads him to permit Globe Theater actor William Shakespeare take credit for the plays. Although Shakespeare is a belligerent and notably stupid man, everyone blindly accepts his claim of authorship. By the time the genius of De Vere’s work is apparent it is too late for Johnson to regain the credit he hastily gave away.

De Vere uses the stage to undermine his political enemies and influence matters of state. While he applies cultural pressure through the stage, he also fights political battles in Queen Elizabeth’s court. If all of this wasn't enough, De Vere beds the queen, a union from which they sire a bastard son. Yes, the Duke is busy bedding the queen, working through the issues of state and of his station but yet has time and inclination to pen the masterworks of Western Civilization. This makes more sense in the eyes of the filmmakers than believing in the silly notion that an actor, with all the time in the world, who was living and breathing theater in an age of explosive culture and art would be able to write brilliantly.

As long as you can ignore the film undermining the very theory it proposes, you may find the real treats of the film are screenwriter John Orloff’s rich dialog and Emmerich’s loving presentation of the Globe performances of Shakespeare’s work. Emmerich has risen to become one of the most profitable film directors in history for a reason. He has a talent for glossing over broken logic to present idiocy as feasible. His face-palm inducing global-warming screed The Day After Tomorrow is a tribute to this specific talent. Despite this part of his track record, Anonymous is engaging and often smartly presented. While he fails at providing a film which will change many minds, he does give us an interesting alternative-fiction look at the workings of the Elizabethan Court and the Globe Theater.

Worldview:

One exchange of dialog I found to be particularly compelling. While pressuring Johnson to accept credit for his work, De Vere points out something every audience member should have at the forefront of their minds at all times:

De Vere

…All art is political, Jonson,

otherwise it would just be decoration.

And all artists have something to say,

otherwise they'd make shoes.

And you are not a cobbler,

are you Jonson?

What is interesting about this quote is that it comes in the middle of a film proposing a conspiracy which serves to undermine common thinking. A film created by Emmerich, an aggressive global warming advocate who has made films specifically to advance his agendas. It is rare for a movie to acknowledge the conspiracy of influence the film industry knowingly conducts on its patrons.

Click on fake Shake to view the trailer

Order Not Chaos

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:00:00 +0000

By Wayne Johnson

Twelve years ago I began my first college class as an instructor. It was a scary and exhilarating experience to give my first lecture. I was teaching an Intro to Computer Animation Class in Softimage. The first assignment was to create something like the whale ship from Star Trek V.

One year later I was the head of the program and had a direct hand in guiding the philosophy behind the program. It was my job to unify the ideas being expressed so that the students would know how to use all of their skills to create their unique vision on the screen.

Today I stumbled upon the document I created that all of the students received when entering the program. It was a list of goals:

Master Our Craft
Unify Our Artistic Language
Show A Great Story
Make Our Animations Live Not Just Move
Make Our Animations Cute and Funny
Orient The Viewer
Advance The Plot
Reveal Character

Even thou the two in the middle referenced animation specifically, those goals are the same for me today as they were 12 years ago.

I would like to point out to the artists that I have trained and worked with over the years that these goals should be very much a part of your artistic life.

Mastery of our craft is an ongoing affair. It is a combination of academic study as well as empirical experience. We have to understand and embrace the tools of our time and take into account the world in which we live and the audience in which we speak. There must be a balance of human expression and the technological tools of our trade.

We must also use a medium that is relevant to our day. Following the footsteps of the great wood cut artists or triptych painters is a great exercise but there is no one looking for the expression of truth in those mediums today. Painting (and even photography) in general has become relegated to decoration and is rarely looked at as a means of expressing ideas and emotions to the general viewer.

The dominant form of expression is the moving picture and will be for the foreseeable future. Yes, music and literature still have a hold on a portion of our society but the moving picture is the prime source of expression. It combines all art forms into one pure form of expression that has the ability to communicate and express ideas and passions like no other medium man has used before. It can reach all levels of society and all levels of education and cross even the most diverse cultural barriers. The moving picture has power to shape and change our world in a way we have not yet fathomed.

But it also saddles the artist of this high art form with the responsibility to use it with an understanding that it can change things, for better or worse. We have to understand that our broken humanness has a tendency to express without thinking through the results.

One perfect example in philosophy is the work of Karl Marx. When he was a young boy his family was very religious and his father expected that the family follow every one of the tenants of their faith. However when the family moved to a new town that was dominated by Lutherans, Marx’s father switched faiths because it would be good for business.

Marx was devastated by the sin of his father and set out his life to build a world with no religious ties. But he did not see the possible consequences of this world without a moral foundation. He was driven by his desire to break free from his father’s mistake and build a world that stood apart. Do not artists seek to do the same?And what have been the devastating results of Marx's ideas!

And if we seek to express those truths and emotions without thinking through the possible consequences of those ideas we are not taking responsibility for our expression.

For those that hold a more Post Modern, Existential, Nihilistic view of existence I ask you to seriously explore the logical ends your faith promotes. Belief in random chance and relativistic ideas has only one end, totalitarian oppression of all.

What does my side story of ideas have to do with the list of goals laid out so many years ago? Without a solid truthful foundation of existence, goals and rules have no meaning, no purpose, no point. Art and expression are completely and totally a waste of time in a world that believes there is no creator.

As I come to the end of my twelve years of teaching, I still believe that those goals still must be followed, and that there is a creator who built and orderly world.

Wayne's commentaries can also be found on his site New Discourses On Art.

Weekend DVD Recommendation: Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Directed by: Marc Rothemund
Written by: Fred Breinersdorfer
Starring: Julia Jentsch, Fabian Hinrichs, André Hennicke and Gerald Alexander Held

Not Rated: No questionable material outside some mild language.

Buy this movie here

Irish political theorist Edmund Burke stated “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” We all would like to think that if we were faced with evil we would have the fortitude to stand against it. Unfortunately, history shows that people not only don’t confront evil, often they fail to recognize its presence until it is too late.

During the Nazi Party’s rule in Germany, a small University of Munich student group called die Weiße Rose (The White Rose) did what they could to bring attention to the brewing evil in their homeland. The group would secretly distribute leaflets and put up graffiti. Their anti-Hitler campaign brought attention from the authorities and the eventual arrests of members by the Gestapo.

As the title suggests, this film follows the final days of die Weiße Rose member Sophie Scholl. Scholl (Julia Jentsch) was executed by the Nazi regime along with her brother Hans (Fabian Hinrichs) and friend Christoph Probst (Florian Stetter) for their righteous treason.

I consider this film to be one of the great hidden gems of the last decade in cinema. The screenplay by Fred Breinersdorfer offers what has to be the best display of combating worldviews put to screen. Breinersdorfer takes the interrogations of Scholl and turns them around on her captors. Scholl is being interrogated but her steadfast morality actually ends up putting the worldview of the Nazis on trial.

On one hand we have the Lutheran Scholl whose view of the world is determined by Christian principles. Her faith informs her decisions and actions. While she initially attempts to defend her family and friends and deny the charges of high treason, she eventually relents and accepts responsibility for her deeds.On the other side of the argument is Gestapo functionary Robert Mohr (Gerald Alexander Held). Mohr represents the Nazi worldview. He attempts to defend his desire for the Nazi philosophy to be correct.

Breinersdorfer contrasts Scholl’s slightly watered down Christian ethos against Mohr’s sputtering belief in Hitler’s promises of a man made paradise. The interrogation scenes alone are worth the price of admission. They are masterfully written and acted by Jentsch and Held to near perfection.

Beyond the interrogation scenes, the film also does a strong job of showing the wheels of dictatorial “justice” in action. Scholl is hurried through the procedures of the legal system as if she were just another widget coming down the assembly line. There’s hardly a moment for human interaction or thought. The Nazi machine was a massive rubber stamp regime that utilized the bureaucratic tools to dehumanize the process of killing people. Once Scholl gets caught in the machine her doom is inevitable.

In the context of the film, the bureaucracy expresses the lack of justice in this world. Scholl’s beliefs are based in God’s Law and His ultimate justice. His law is eternal and consistent. The feeble law of man is hindered by the sway of man’s inclinations. Yes, the legal system that killed Scholl was a functioning organ, but it was poisoned by the sickness that is Nazism. Scholl’s beliefs are consistent because she relies on God for her direction, not the machinations of man.

Even if you do not like films that have subtitles, this is a fantastic production that deserves your attention.

Click below to view the trailer

Pulp Fiction (1994)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
Film Students/Geeks: Yes.
Real Humans: No.

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary
Starring: John Travolta, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Quinten Tarantino and Christopher Walken

Rated R for detailed depiction of drug use, brutal violence, rape, sexual content and harsh language throughout.

Rent or Buy This Movie Here

Quentin Tarantino is blessed with a genius for language. He also has a talent for wielding his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema and pop culture. Unfortunately, he is also a master at squandering his gifts on self-indulgent pap.

There are good reasons why Pulp Fiction will be the film Tarantino shall be remembered for. It will consistently be placed as one of the most important films of the 1990’s. The film is a knot of four stories, each centering on underground characters in Los Angeles. The stories mingle with one another in narratives, characters, and timelines in such a way that a character killed in a scene will reappear in a later one. The disorienting ordering of scenes combined with the rapid fire dialog makes this film a unique presentation. Tarantino's masterful dialog also makes his script a textbook for aspiring screenwriters.

From a technical point of view, the film is quite remarkable. Tarantino has masterful dialog, carefully crafted scenes, and memorable performances from the cast. All these things make Pulp Fiction a film worth noting. If I can so easily offer it such praise, how can I honestly turn around and tell you not to see it?

Tarantino paints a brilliant picture, but fails to infuse it with any purpose. Art without purpose is design. While design is fun, it doesn’t hold anything for the soul – it is made for the eyes. This is a very “cool” movie but it is hardly fulfilling. There are plenty of thrills, as there are numerous striking scenes of violence, sexual depravity and drug use. There are scenes which will stick in your mind, including a male rape scene, a detailed how-to scene on shooting heroin; and even worse, Bruce Willis naked. Again, Tarantino paints of brilliant picture, but his subject is truly ugly.

For the extent of the run-time you are watching hideous people doing horrendous things to other hideous people. Everyone is an amoral beast carelessly drifting through the world causing mayhem and bloodshed along the way. Instead of pulling the various plots together into a decisive moral point, Tarantino is comfortable letting the loose ends float in the wind without resolution – therefore there is ultimately no point.

No one in the film matters, because in the universe Tarantino presents, life has no meaning. If life is meaningless, so is death. As an example: Marvin, a young black man, is shot in the face while riding in a car with a pair of hit men. Marvin’s head explodes all over the backseat. The moment his brains splatter, Tarantino has him referred to as “dead nigger” for the remainder of the scene (and often uses the term as a joke). Marvin is no longer a man, he not an individual, he's not respected. He’s just a "dead nigger" who needs to be mopped up. If it were clear that Tarantino were trying to show the world as an amoral jungle this may be forgivable, but he never delves that deep into his own philosophy.

What is very frustrating is that there is actually a hint of depth in the film’s prologue and epilogue. Two petty thieves, known by their intimate nicknames Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, hastily plan to rob the crowded diner where they are drinking coffee. The film opens with them plotting the caper. In the film’s closing scene we return to the couple as they rob the shocked diner patrons. Unfortunately, one of the patrons is a career criminal who refuses to be robbed. In this final scene of the movie the pair of petty thieves is actually cast in the role of the sinful Adam and Eve. The professional criminal who is turning from his wickedness becomes a de facto Christ figure (who spews a made up extended version of Ezekiel 25:17). I understand it sounds bizarre, but Tarantino manages to shoehorn this into the film. Just like the nihilistic aspects of his script, he fails to focus long on this spiritual aspect, leaving the audience with the sense something was expounded while really skirting the whole issue.

The movie was made simply to consume, and that is all. There is no overriding reason to see the film other than it's "cool". This is fine if you're a simpleton who has no expectation from cinema other than titillation. If you break this film down and look at it, it is hollow.

Yes, many critics and cinephiles rave about this film. Their excitement is understandable, but I believe it is misplaced. This is a memorable and invigorating film to be certain. Under close inspection, there is little going on beyond popping dialog and flashy moments of grotesque evil. Ultimately, this is a vile trip through the imagination of a man who is stuck in his corrupted adolescence. As I have stated on this site before, Tarantino is a legitimate talent, but he has the instincts and mentality of an abused twelve-year-old boy left alone with a box of frogs and firecrackers.

Click below to view the trailer

Testimony: I Was A Total Scumbag, Now I'm Just a Jerk; Praise the Lord!

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:26:00 +0000

Below is a segment I did for CBN's 700 Club. Essentially, it is a short version of my testimony. I hope it helps someone out there.

Blackthorn (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Nehring) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Reviewer: Scott Nehring

Should I see it?
Absolutely.

Director: Mateo Gil
Written by: Miguel Barros
Starring: Sam Shepard, Eduardo Noriega, Stephen Rea Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Magaly Solier, Padraic Delaney and Dominique McElligott

Rated R for violence and language

Rent of Buy This Movie Here

I adored this film. Then again, I believe that Sam Shepard (with both his acting and in particular his writing) is a national treasure. Perhaps I am the wrong guy to ask.

Butch Cassidy (Shepard), going under the name James Blackthorn, has grown into a leather-faced old man in the hills of Bolivia. Living his post-criminal days breeding horses, Blackthorn decides to act on his desire to return to America. During his preparations to leave the country he is ambushed by Eduardo Apodaca (Eduardo Noriega), who claims to have robbed a mining industrialist of $50,000. The two eventually partner after Apodaca promises to split the loot if Blackthorn helps him evade the posse on his trail. The pair go on the lam across Bolivia and into the Uyuni salt flats on their way to the coast where Blackthorn will hire a boat to take him to America.

Sam Shepard's reserved style can make him an unapproachable actor for mainstream audiences - which is why he does so well in roles portraying authority figures (Black Hawk Down, The Pelican Brief, Thunderheart) and not the hero. His distant persona works in this performance. His Cassidy is a man worn down by the past. Cursed to live in the backwaters of Bolivia, away from his son born by Etta Place (Dominique McElligott), he is a phantom of the spry young man who entered the foreign land to escape U.S. justice. Shepard balances the stark differences between the delicate emotions of an aged man troubled by what he has lost with the cold-hearted individualism of a lifelong criminal who has tried to live on his own terms. Admitting my bias towards Shepard's work, I do think he was overlooked for Best Actor. Of his film performances, I found this to be the best in his career.

The film isn't a one-man show. Eduardo Noriega also gives a notable performance as the thieving mining engineer Eduardo. Noriega is not a well-known commodity in the United States but has made a name for himself in Spain. His performance in this film should secure him some notoriety on this side of the Atlantic. He plays well against Shepard and the pairing benefits both actors.

The story itself is a traditional chase story, but director Mateo Gil avoids many of the usual trappings of the genre. While the chase is at the heart of the story, this is really a detailed character piece by the end. Sure the real Cassidy probably died early on, but the character developed here is fully formed. The audience is given reason to care about him finding peace and resolution - which is saying something given they are rooting for a brutal criminal.

Worldview: Cassidy has been tempered by old age and decades of quiet. He retains the individualistic/survivor nature which helped him make his way out of America, but he has settled down just the same. When we find him, he seems to be living in a tropical Eden. He is secluded, his home is open and clean. He has a comfortable relationship with a beautiful Bolivian woman. All of this is not enough for him however, he longs for home. That's not to say he longs to be around other Americans, or other folks of his racial background. What Cassidy really longs for is the ideal he imagines his "home" America has to offer.

Cassidy is prompted to return to the States when he learns his past love Etta Place has died. He writes her son - who is also his son - as he plans to make his way north. It is the loss of Place that he hopes to resolve. In reality what the film is presenting is a sinful man quietly resenting the fruits of his former self. His criminality introduced him to the passion of his life, Place. It is the same criminality (sinfulness) which also ripped her away from him and put an irreparable split between him and his partner in crime The Sundance Kid.

This is an interesting contradiction many find in their lives. We are lured in by our sin and find something precious in the act. Conversely, we are tortured when our sin rips that precious thing from our grasp. Hmm. Sounds like hell on Earth.

Cautions: There is some violence, although it is relatively mild compared with the content regularly presented on television - there is also some language but I found it contextual and not offensive.

Click on ol' Sam to view the trailer