Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction

LINKS

— Overview
— Cast and Crew
— Photo Pages

"I've got these really great nude videos of Sharon Stone -- do you have a movie we can put them in?" I can almost imagine this pre-production dialogue between writers on Basic Instinct 2. Or perhaps this: "I have this really cool mystery thriller. Do you have any nude videos of Sharon Stone we could throw in?"

With the current trend of filming comic books and graphic novels (V for Vendetta, Spawn, X-Men, Superman, Spider-man), actors play comic book characters. But in Basic Instinct 2, the actors become comic book characters.

BI2 is an ineffective thriller. It tries too hard to divert audience attention from the truth -- like disguising the butler as the chauffeur so people will suspect the nanny. None of the character actions are motivated. Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone) is a tramp, Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) is a psychologist who can’t resist his weaknesses, and neither of them are believable as villain or victim. There are only a few moments where you feel any empathy for them or the murder victims. The character who evokes the most empathy is police inspector Roy Washburn (David Thewlis, the one good performance).

Here's the “thriller� part of the film: Londoners are being murdered and all of them have a connection with Dr. Glass. His ex-wife, her new lover, and a one night stand of Catherine’s -- they're all murdered. Is Dr. Glass being set up? Is Catherine's trying to kill him? Is she trying to manipulate him into killing for her? Or is she just making the nanny take the fall for the chauffeur impersonating the butler?

Though it's actually not a bad idea for a plot (psychological thrillers are supposed to surprise), it gets weird. Toward the middle, I began comparing it to the 1981 steamfest Body Heat with Kathleen Turner. But this one just didn’t come off as well. I couldn’t see what drew Dr. Glass to Catherine. He uses her as a shield to perform his own heinous acts, yet she's as omniscient and ubiquitous a stalker as I’ve ever seen. And Dr. Glass (whose office is in a comical glass phallus - the famous Gherkin Building) is supposedly Great Britain’s premier psychoanalyst. Caveat Emptor!

Most of this movie's thrills are lost in contrivance. Every crime scene and “chance� meeting between Catherine and Dr. Glass is too convoluted, implausible, or convenient. Though Catherine and Michael have cause not to be together -- Michael for professional reasons, and Catherine because there are better fish in the sea -- they're always together. And with no fire between them, there's no struggle to stay apart. I guess Dr. Glass was just curious, and Catherine was, um, just the victim.

Basic Instinct 2 has all the symbolism and cliché of a cheap porno flick: phallic buildings, strategically placed bad art, pretentious parties, and cheap sex talk with a backdrop of sexual zymology. The story could have been interesting enough without the gratuitous nude scenes. Don’t get me wrong—Sharon Stone still looks great, but they have magazines for that.

In the end, Catherine’s book gets written and it plays out just like the movie. Perhaps the screenplay uses future and past with impunity. Perhaps there is a back story that I am not aware of. The bottom line is that this is a missed opportunity. A great psychological thriller of intrigue, betrayal, and double-cross—a sordid sex affair to cloud everyone’s thinking—almost happened. I just think there was too much of a good thing (i.e., Sharon Stone, skin, perversion, plot) to make the story flow.

Honestly, I guess I’m just not all too thrilled to see so much (literally) of Sharon Stone. Really, I do enjoy a good thriller—and I was truly hoping for one.

Unfortunately, I just got Sharon Stone in the nude.

Continue:
— Overview
— Cast and Crew
— Photo Pages

Duck Season

Duck Season is a story about the fuzzy, seemingly undefined period from childhood to adulthood. It features 3 young actors about 15 years old, and one other who is supposed to be about 21. The film takes place almost entirely in the upper floor apartment of Flama. He lives there with his soon to be divorced mother and father. He is a red haired boy of 14. (There is a funny scene involving his red hair later on in the day.) His mother leaves for the day and leaves Flama (Daniel Miranda, feature-film debut) with his friend Moko (Diego Cataño). Armed with pizza money and an X-Box, the boys are destined for a great day of boyishness.

Not too far into this the neighbor girl Rita (Danny Perea) of about 16 comes over to borrow the oven. Hers is broken. Around this time the power goes out and the movie takes on a life of its own. What do three teenagers do when they are bored beyond their initial expectations?

The heart of the movie consists of these three, and an eventual fourth, doing what any bored teenager might do. Get creative. Between baking, talking about which parent Flama should go live with, Rita having to redo every recipe she’s tried due to intermittent power outages and poor cooking skills, to shorting the pizza delivery guy because he was 11 seconds late from his 30 minute guarantee, these kids dream up some very creative diversions.

In addition to conversations about sex, growing up, college, ducks, X-Box contests, and indoor target practice on family heirlooms, these kids illustrate how much destruction can take place in one house filled with teenagers. Most of the conversation is directed by Rita and Ulises (Enrique Arreola). Ulises is the hapless pizza guy who gets stiffed. He tries to win his fee back by an X-Box contest that has a funny conclusion.

The film is shot effectively in black and white. The first minute of so of the film sets the tone of boredom and aimlessness that the kids experience. The cinematography is also clever and effective. The aimlessness and near pathos of these characters is enhanced by the filming method. Another highlight scene shows all four kids discussing a painting of duck season. This is the focal point of current division between mother and father—who gets what. Flama gets one thing. The picture was in a closet for years before it was hung and now his parents are fighting over its possession. He sees through that charade.

Director Fernando Eimbcke wanted to capture the searching and longing of adolescence. In my view he did. I was impressed with the thought as I left the theatre that he successfully filmed engaging boredom. He introduced us to the long journey of an adolescent Sunday afternoon and kept us glued to our seats. An admirable feat, I’d say!

There is so much in this film that I don’t want to divulge much. It is not an action film and to describe much of the storyline would ruin the effect. Too much description weakens the freshness and ad-lib properties of the movie. This is a film to be experienced with a minimum of knowledge beforehand. It is very refreshing. It’s thought-provoking, insightful, and good art.

Plaguemaker

Author: Tim Downs
Hardback
Publisher: WestBow Press
Released: January 2006
ISBN: 1595540229

Four lives tragically intersect to stop a plot to exterminate 100 million people. The plot is the result of one man’s consuming passion; the other three are on an equally passionate mission to stop him.

All four lives have been marred by personal tragedies—tragedies made more profound by the fact that they were beyond anyone’s power to prevent. The suffering and tremendous loss drives each of them to passionate action, to a life’s mission. All but one has not been able to come to terms with his own powerlessness; he realizes that God is the only one who can redeem the heartbreak. The eventual meeting of the four results in a locus of personal and mass destruction, reconciliation, and human triumph.

Tim Downs’ newest book, Plaguemaker, is a first-rate thriller—another bug thriller by the consummate bug guy. The story centers around biological warfare (inexpensive and highly deliverable weapons of mass destruction), and is made all the more scary by the realization of its conceivability. The story takes place in New York City, where our nemesis is a badly deluded, mourning, Japanese chemical genius left over from the WWII chemi-thon, Sato Matsushito. Even though Japan lost the war, Sato and his cronies had the good fortune to be picked up by the Russians after Hiroshima. The Russians were appalled by the use of chemical testing on the Chinese. But they needed chemical weapons and Japan knew a lot about what they didn’t. So they gave most of the scientists a free pass to Moscow. (Historically, but for the “A� Bomb, and the subsequent end of the war, San Diego was targeted for the plague by the Japanese.)

[Side Note: The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons; nothing prohibits their development. So in the spirit of good sportsmanship, major superpowers have developed these weapons. The really scary part in my view? The Geneva Convention is arguably one of the weakest of all human contracts. Prohibiting the use while allowing the development of these weapons gives us a glimpse into the duality of human nature, and the tenuousness of the Geneva Convention. In order to develop the effectiveness of bio-weapons on humans, they must be tested on humans… And that testing is why I’m nervous. Testing implies use. If a nation will test them on humans, where is the morality that stops them from “using� them on humans? Hence my perceived weakness of the prohibitions.]

Back to the story: Our G-man is Nathan Donovan, who happens to be a good man with a bad attitude that just so happens to serve the CIA very well. Our G-woman turns out to be college professor Dr. Macy Monroe, of uncommon beauty (thanks for that, Mr. Downs), who is trained in terrorist negotiations and a million other things. Our hero is a Chinese-born Christian, Mr. Li, who ends up spending the bulk of his life in England. He, too, was a victim of some WWII chemical testers and has spent his life tracking those scientists down. No, I’m not going to tell you any other details!

As a Christian, Mr. Li has an exemplary witness. His character is not cheap and schmaltzy. His conversations about eternal things are handled well. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Chinese wisdom mingled in with the Biblical truth that he espouses. This fine, easy-to-read-but-hard-to-put-down book teaches some strong lessons, and their strength comes from the story’s realness. It is hard to put down, though, because it’s a great story, full stop! (Marine term, slight spoiler there). Honestly, it is a great story, told with humor, practicality, and good research.

And it’s a great thriller. As a novelist, Tim Downs has found a new fan. I’d not read any of his books before I was given this one to review, and I must say I’m impressed. It probably helps that I know a bit about the operations of shipping lines and waterfront business. I enjoyed that aspect of the story. There is one very tense section where an explosion causes shipping containers to rain down on Nathan and Dr. Monroe. I’ve had a stack of containers fall on my container lift before, with me in it. The picture wasn’t pretty and I remember well the feeling. Thanks for that too, Mr. Downs.

Look for the creative and intelligent ways Li shares his faith. He sincerely wants to do the Lord’s work. The life of a CIA agent has its stresses, but it was nice to realize that there are probably people in that profession that can bring the truth of Christ to them. As people they are no different from the average guy. We all need to be “ready to die daily.� For a CIA agent, there is pragmatism in that scripture.

One lesson I took away from Plaguemaker is this: Success depends on how you deal with your losses. You can either have your life consumed by fear, loss, and revengeful pursuits, or you can spend your life in forgiveness with God’s mission in your heart. Plaguemaker made me think about this—yet in a smart and well-intoned way. Excellent read.

Note to author: too short. I didn’t want the story to end.

Signs of God: Design in Nature

Author: Harun Yahya
Paperback
Publisher: Global Publishing (2001)
ISBN: 9756426349

I often wonder what science could teach us if it were intended to discover a creation by God rather than advance support for an accident. It seems like we waste a lot of brainpower and time supporting theories that become less viable every year.

I’m not a scientist. Nor am I an attorney, a police officer, a judge, or a teacher. But I can recognize strong evidence when I see it, and that’s the foundation of the book Signs of God by Harun Yahya. The evidence for design is overwhelming. Thanks to Mr. Yahya, I’m thoroughly convinced that the evolutionary concept of complexity by natural selection is wholly bogus. However one approaches the debate, one has to admit that the many symbiotic relationships between species can only decrease the astronomically minute possibility of mutually beneficial evolutionary change.

One of Yahya’s strongest arguments is built on the study of the wings of birds and winged insects. The complex musculoskeletal structures of each type of wing would have made these species extinct before they could modify to their present state. Harun uses common scientific photographs and drawings to illustrate his point. His conclusions aren’t those of the elite in society, but they do echo the conclusions of most people on the planet. He sees such tremendous design work that he concludes there must be a Designer (God). Opinion leaders in the scientific community see this same design and conclude there must be lots of Time.

Whichever way you go, you have to exercise faith. Evolutionists have faith in time, and in themselves. If something can’t be reproduced in the lab, or if the adaptation seems too preposterous, one can always add millions of years to the equation. After all, there is no proof of evolutionary developments other than the claim that they took time. And since they are the experts, who can argue?

On the other hand, if creatures were created, time isn’t an issue; therefore the evolutionist must always default to time. And since evolution can’t really be observed, it must be taken on faith. What would be wrong with intelligent design, unless a person has an ingrained bias against it? Would it be so intellectually dishonest to believe that there was an intelligent being out there? And if so, why not serve Him?

It’s interesting that this book arrived at my door about the same time as two new books by atheists: The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and Breaking the Spell by Daniel C. Dennett. Both claim that evolution should eradicate belief in God. These assertions exemplify evolution’s biggest draw—and it’s only hope. It’s an alternative reality that there is no God—a premise. When dealing with the unprovable, a person has two choices: One, believe your side is true and protect it from all doubt (sort of like plugging your ears and yelling so that bad information can’t enter your consciousness). Or two, humbly consider both sides. In the case of origins your conclusions must have a faith component. Both sides believe they are correct, but they are diametrically opposed to one another. Someone is wrong.

Both Harris and Dennett rightly decry religions’ historical abuses. But you have two guesses as to the spiritual point of view of Atheistic Communism and Nazism. It is a narrow mind that assumes only one reason for religious horrors, especially since non-religion has an even worse record of human abuses, i.e., Atheistic Communism and Nazism. Also, not all religious systems have the same level of human excess. My argument is that humans are inherently evil. They will screw up the best of ideas. Maybe the atheist is just being economical; perhaps it’s easier to eliminate religion than human nature. Religion may not be the problem, but it’s at least easier to blame. Another mistake that atheists make is to lump all religions together, regardless of their individual assertions. They make no attempt to delineate the overarching effects each religion has had on its relative civilization. No two religions are alike.

Back to Harun Yahya. The pictures in his book are terrific. There are accurate illustrations, and excellent photographs. I recommend it for students as young as eight years old as well as adults. In my view, Yahya has simply compiled a book that considers Intelligent Design a foregone conclusion. He has a Muslim perspective that I happen to agree with on this topic, and there is definitely a solid foundation to his arguments. He treats his topic and his audience with respect.

Many atheists, by contrast, tend to share the opinion that anyone who disbelieves their ideas is stupid. “Woe to the unbelievers!� Perhaps they are evangelists writing “good news� to the unbelievers. I don’t know. We are all evangelists in one way or another. There are fundamentalist radicals on both sides of the God debate.

The evolution debate is over for me. I’m unmoved. I’ve examined the evidence as best as I could. I was spoon feed the dogma all through my elementary and high school years; it didn’t make sense to me then, and it doesn’t now. I believe evolution is based on a faulty premise. I guess I’m a dim bulb, as many atheistic evolutionists think. Or maybe I’m just an unbeliever.

Love's Long Journey (DVD)

Based on the popular series by best-selling Christian author Janette Oke, the three episodes in this DVD series follow the family of a young woman named Missie from the time her biological father meets her adoptive mother.

Love’s Long Journey, the third in this series, recounts the events surrounding Missie and her husband Willie as they start a family and a cattle business. The problems and tragedies that they deal with are realistic enough, but the author or screenwriters seem to sanitize everything. Each episode works out just fine, true to Hallmark formula. In fact, these three films, all directed by Michael Landon, Jr., top Hallmark’s long list of hits featuring wholesome and inspiring love stories, earning the top three standings in popularity on the Hallmark Channel.

As spiritually-themed movies, they have a lot to offer, namely by addressing several pertinent issues relevant to our time. These include subjects such as the Christian witness in the world; how Christians treat each other; how to raise good kids; and even an interesting take on what time with the Lord might look like.

The story takes place in the second half of the 19th century, around 1876. I imagine that at the time of the story the Christian message was understood, particularly since America was experiencing a spiritual awakening following the Civil War. In the story, the methods used to attract people to the Christian message were about what one might expect: Missie invites people to have church with her family, since there is no church in the wilderness where they were building their home. Presumably, everyone in the movie “knew� God in the Christian sense and simply had wandered away from the faith. But while those assumptions and witnessing strategies may have been perfectly effective in 1876, they have little relevance over a century later.

For those interested in evangelicalism (either through direct involvement or open-minded curiosity) Love’s Long Journey offers viewers a chance to observe some genuine, warm evangelism. We see Missie (Erin Cotrell) able to influence those around her because of her loving and accepting ways. By behaving like a Christian to everyone around her, she wins hearts. Her husband Willie (Logan Bartholomew) is a loving husband and boss. His guys are devoted to him because he treats everyone fairly and gives some down-and-outers a second or even a third chance to earn a living. Throughout the story, there are numerous examples of how a good witness can positively impact one’s peers. With startling insight, the film exemplifies how to live well in one’s environment and culture. Audiences can witness the value of prayer, seeing how a man’s character is shaped and strengthened by daily conversation with God. These are all good things.

However, Love’s Long Journey, while a good story, is most likely a story that will appeal only to Christians (probably by design). The lives portrayed are pretty well sanitized. Their clothes are always clean. The bad guys are actually pretty good guys. The really bad guys get what’s comin’ to ‘em (it’s a Western setting). Their lives are sanitized by either the target audience’s sensibilities or by a false reality that everything works out to our satisfaction. In short, it is a sermonette for Christianettes.

Here’s the “but�—part of which is due to the newest hobby horse I’m riding, which is this: the church has so insulated itself from the world and its cultures that it can’t offer any reasonable apologetic for Christ. Nor does it allow the culture a chance to engage in conversation. There are changes happening within the Church with regard to this problem. Movies like this, though, are written for the “ostrich� faction of the Church. These three films seem to be trying to witness to the saved. And that's fine. But the church needs to spend less time trying to protect itself through its own sub-culture of art. The church does not appear to take seriously the mandate that Jesus left to “go out into the world and make disciples of all nations.� Or maybe we’ve left it up to professionals. I’ll let you decide who that is.

I have a couple of reasons why I say what I do: One is that the Church in its bubble no longer recognizes what’s going on in the culture. Second, the Church can’t relate to the culture, and therefore can’t do its job as salt and light or as heralds. Third, the Church has become protective of its own subculture to the point of wanting (even expecting) to force that culture (which it no longer understands or connects with) to change to suit the Church—which likes to think that it is good, or at least “gooder,� and therefore deserves to make the desired changes. It wants to protect its own culture and comfort, as my wife sagely puts it. Christians are quickly coming to resemble much of the Muslim world in their motivation, trying to use their influence to make the “infidel� conform. Fortunately the Lord will not let that happen, but it may take a pruning or strong disciplinary action to change it.

And now just a side word to Christians in our reading audience: Romans 8:28 says, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.� As Christians, I think we often forget that we are called to His purpose. Not our own. We also need to define what “good� means here. God will watch out for us. But to assume that our satisfaction is the ultimate good is a stretch. Many Christians around the world know this Scripture, and their lives are violently ended before they get to see any material good. So is the Scripture false for them and only true for us, or do we misunderstand it?

I hope all audiences take away positive images of evangelicalism from this DVD series. I also hope that this movie was not Hallmark’s highest-rated show ever simply because it perpetuates the falsehoods that the church of today both teaches and assumes—the mentality that says God is available to protect you and sent His Son to supply you with all the good stuff you can imagine. That notion is a crock. It’s also ruination to the work of Christ.