Reviews by PapaBear

Da Vinci Code, The (2006)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Tue, 23 May 2006 18:41:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Tom Hanks)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

To start with, I was disappointed. Not that the Da Vinci Code wasn’t a “good” movie, more so that it wasn’t a “great” movie. With all the hype I had expected something more than I got. Maybe that was the problem -- all the hype had built up my expectations beyond what the movie delivered.

Tom Hanks was good as usual and almost any film by Ron Howard has to at least be considered for viewing. Though I was thrown off a little at times by some of the quickly flashing scenes, which I assume was included for artistic appeal, but all it ended up doing was to make my stomach queasy.

I guess what drew me, and everyone else, to the film was the religious controversy. Again, I was very disappointed. I expected some strong theological points that could be debated (as I like a good theological discussion), but the story was really more about a mystery surrounded by murder (I don’t really care for murder mysteries, which may bias my Review). Yes, at the heart of the murders and the mystery was a Catholic Church conspiracy, though even this wasn’t about a Papal conspiracy – not the Vatican, but a small council or group of renegade priest. This is nothing new. I have seen several other movies that had Church officials involved in a murder plot to protect the faith. The sad thing is with all the hype around the Da Vinci Code, it wasn’t even as good as some of these other movies – like the 1986 film “The Name of the Rose” starring Sean Connery.

I will admit that there were some exciting scenes and it was interesting to see Tom Hanks play detective and solve the various clues to the mystery – though as has been discussed ad nauseam, the basis for the clues are mostly a twisting of actual facts by the author. It would be fun to go on for a couple of pages discussing how the author’s, Dan Brown, fictional novel played loosely with historical facts to create a mystery at the center of the novel. But that has been done by more people than I can count at this writing. I guess overall I did not buy into the basis of the story. Not about some renegade priest killing people in the name of the Church – that I could believe – after all priest are still men at the core when it comes down to it and people will rationalize many things in the name of something they are passionate about, not just religion. But it seems like a long stretch to buy into Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having a child. Maybe this is because I have spent some amount of time studying the authenticity of the Bible and have researched other extraneous documents, especially Gnostic gospels (the basis for much of Brown’s rationale) such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Secret Book of James, and many other “books” that have been raised as contradicting the Bible.

I imagine some people might take the fictional film as some type of truth, but I don’t think the movie would sway anyone from their faith. Those that have faith will not all of a sudden decide that Jesus is not the Son of God and change their religious affiliation. Those that believe Jesus is God will still believe that and those that believe in Church conspiracies or don’t believe that Jesus was really man and God in one, will just have that belief enforced. Those that had no opinion before may be influenced by the film, but if they came out with anything more than questions (which is a good thing) then I would be amazed. If someone came out of watching the Da Vinci Code and all of sudden believed that there was a descendent of Jesus walking around somewhere, then we need put extra guards on the Declaration of Independence because these same folks are going to try and steal it so they can locate the giant shaft, under a church tomb, where they will be able to recover the “National Treasure” buried there by the Knights Templar and the Masons in the time of our fore-fathers. And by the way, the movie “National Treasure” (a knock off of Da Vinci Code in the first place) probably relied upon more facts than the Da Vinci Code does.

I consider myself a pretty good follower of Jesus (not the best by any means), but I really have a lot of trouble understanding why some in the religious community have raised such a stink about this movie. All they have done is turned a fairly mediocre movie into a blockbuster and have driven to the film the exact people they wanted to keep away from seeing it. Other than being about 30-45 minutes too long, the film was just a reasonable mystery story with a church conspiracy thrown in (which like I said has been done many times in the past).

Few people are going to be swayed one way or the other by this film. If anything, it might generate discussion about Jesus around the office water cooler – I know I have already talked to a couple of people about it -- and how can this be a bad thing?

— Overview

RV (2006)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:50:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs
—5. Posters (Robin Williams)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

Special:
Faith in Hollywood: Up Close with Kristin Chenoweth

FREE DOWN LOAD
The RV Activity Book from the movie RV starring Robin Williams, Cheryl Hines, Kristin Chenoweth , Bob McNeive
Click here (PDF)

I LOVED IT! Not only was RV a very funny movie, but it also had a very deep message for me. This is probably why I LOVED IT and I also hated it. Okay, I guess I have to explain this statement. But first let me tell you one reason I loved it. It was hilariously funny. Robin Williams was at his best. His movie family complimented his wit with their own comedic talent and the Gornicke family (more about them later) played a great straight man for the characters played by Williams’ and his movie family. Laughter constantly filled the theater and you just couldn’t help but roar at the various situations and the one-liners.

Why I hated it is going to have to wait a few minutes (but I promise it will be worth it). Let me go through an overview of the story, before I get into explaining the statement. Bob Munro (Robin Williams) is a hard working company man who, at 50, is threatened by the younger blood that Williams’ boss (a real jerk well played by Will Arnet) has brought into to evidently replace Williams. Williams’ family is a modern day, all too common, group of individuals who have grown apart over time. The 12 year son, played by Josh Hutcherson, is isolated spending his time body building (to compensate for his small stature) and acts all “down with it”, which doesn’t quite go with his upper middle class California upbringing. The 15 year old daughter Cassie (played by singer Joanna “JoJo” Levesque) pretty much thinks her father, Williams, is the biggest jerk in the world and you can only imagine that she can’t wait to get out of high school and away from the family. Williams’ wife, Jamie, played by Cheryl Hines, doesn’t really demonstrate any character flaws other than as a member of the family -- they are all, as Williams says, most of the family’s time at home is spent off in four different parts of the house watching four different TVs.

To “save” his job, Williams must come up with an excuse why he can’t take the family on vacation to Hawaii, as planned (and can’t go another time during the Summer because the kids are off to camp in Alaska or other ventures), but must instead go to Colorado via a rented RV. So naturally he is afraid to tell his wife or kids and just lies to them, telling them he wants them all to get together and spend time as a family. The truth being that he wants to work on a presentation and then somehow, when they reach Colorado, give the presentation and keep his job. He doesn’t believe that they will support him, so he must lie. As you can imagine, nothing works as planned, except that the lie, the family bonding, starts to become a reality.

Along the way the Williams and family meet another roving RV family, the Gornicke’s. And in contrast to Williams’ family, the Gornicke’s are so sweet they are dripping with honey. They are “overly” friendly. The husband and wife are as close as you can get, the kids love the parents, and they come across as about as nerdy as you can get. Living in their RV and traveling the country, the kids are home-schooled by the busty blond mom (Mary Jo Gornicke played by Kristin Chenoweth) and the dad, Travis (played superbly by Jeff Daniels) who you figure is just got to be a good ole boy from the backwoods. Not to spoil it, but you can’t tell a book by the cover -- or a family by the fact that they live in a RV. The problem with the Gornicke’s is not that they aren’t nice. The problem is that they are toooooooo nice. They are the type of people you just want to strangle at first. But this is more the problem of people like me, not people that are like the Gornicke’s – they have their act together and have no problem with priorities (unlike some people I know – hint-hint, I mean me).

So you have the jest of the movie. An extremely (but all too common) dysfunctional family stuck in an RV for several days and who are constantly confronted with the other side of family life (the Gornicke’s). So now I can explain more about why I hated the movie. The movie had a GREAT message. It really showed what family was supposed to be about, many times by demonstrating what it shouldn’t be. It also showed that underneath the charade we act out for the world and the self imposed isolation that many of us enforce on ourselves and those around us, that what most of us want is to be loved and part of something bigger than ourselves – and what most of us don’t realize is that our own family is the easiest “bigger” thing we can be part of.

Even though just watching Bob and family you have no problem understanding their problems, the film uses the Gornicke’s to provide a startling contrast in family dynamics. Like I said before, at first you want to strangle the Gornicke’s, but by the end of movie you understand that Bob’s family’s real problem with the Gornicke’s is probably driven by jealousy. You are able to see past the “nerdiness” and see true love and devotion.

So if it was unbelievably funny and had a great message, then why did I hate it? Well, I hated it because I was Williams (but not nearly as funny). I can’t remember a time when I laughed so much and at the same time felt more convicted of my own behavior. I was Williams at the beginning of the movie. I am all about trying to “do” things. I saw him so worried about the material things in life that he would lie to his family and try to “control” everything around him – and I sat there saying “OUCH!” I can relate. And he always had the excuse that he was getting these things for his family – the camp in Alaska, the beautiful home for his wife (who he refers to as the “princess” at one point – and not in a good way). While spewing one-liners I watched Williams lie and connive and use his family as the rationale for what he did. I have come to understand, which is one of the reasons I love Robin Williams, that he has many layers to his performances and the characters he portrays. With Bob, he brings alive a character who is simultaneously funny and a poignant representative (sad to say) of modern father and husband.

My daughter complains that I am always on my laptop (writing, well, Movie Reviews or working on my website or catching up on e-mails and “work”). More often than not she will ask me a question and I will go “huh” and ask her to repeat. She has pretty much given up and just says “forget it”. She has told me on numerous occasions that I should go get my hearing checked. The problem is that I have and my hearing is fine. It is just that I don’t pay attend. My focus is not on what she is saying, but on all the “other” things. My wife jokes about the fact that I disappear into my “cave” the moment I walk through the door. Though I don’t think she is joking in reality. The greatest gift I gave her was the one time we went on vacation and didn’t bring my laptop – thank goodness for Blackberrys.

This is my life, Bob Munro. A self made Bob Munro. This is why I hated the movie. Because I saw myself as Bob Munro, or at least as he was through most of the film. The challenge that I have given myself is, can I be like Bob at the end of the movie. Do I have the strength and courage to change? Is Bob’s transformation, as his wife says a glimpse of the way they (Bob and her) use to be – HAPPY -- just a fairytale out of a movie, or is there a chance that it can be real. So there you have it -- I am Bob Munro. And I hate being Bob. So that is why I hate the film. Not that the movie was bad, but that it reflected my own character flaws. My own inability to understand where my real priorities lie. Okay, I have put it in writing. I have admitted it. So what can I do about it? I just saw the film while on business travel and will be going home tomorrow. I don’t know what I am going to do, but I am so glad that I saw the film. It gave me a couple of hours of plain old fun, and did what a really good movie should do – made me look at myself or the world around me. And as ugly, and as hard as that was, I am so glad that I saw it.

I highly recommend this film to virtually anyone, but I especially suggest you gather up the family (and that includes you teens dragging your parents along if they won’t go willingly), no matter if you are dripping with sweets like the Gornicke’s or even mildly dysfunctional like Bob and his family, and head to the theater as soon as you can. It will be more than worth the price of admission. And if you are lucky – maybe you will hate it also.

— Overview

She's the Man (2006)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:05:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Amanda Bynes)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

Some of the funniest scenes, as you can imagine, are built upon Viola (played by Amanda Bynes) pretending to be a guy, her brother Sebastian (played James Kirk – no not of the Enterprise). I knew Amanda was a big star on Nicelodeon and I had seen her a couple of times in the past, but had not really taken her very seriously. But in She’s the Man, Amanda is really, seriously, funny. But it’s not just the comedic lines, but her facial expressions and body language, and how she carried herself in the role of this character. Of course this role wasn’t what you would call an Oscar winning role, but then it wasn’t really meant to be. I can’t wait to see Bynes, as she matures, in other more meaningful roles. Though I figure for now she will be in the mold of Linsay Lohan and other Disney/Nicelodeon stars.

While the film was extremely funny, it was also moving at times. A little bit of teen romance set against a sports background. But I think that more than just teenage girls will enjoy this film. Maybe not something a group of guys would go to see together (even if it does have a sports theme), but a good movie for a teen couple to take in or even an adult date movie. Nothing too deep, but worth it nonetheless.

Besides the humor I liked the theme of the movie. Basically, that people are more than what we see on the surface. The old cliché of “don’t judge a book by the cover”. And this wasn’t just shown by Viola pretending to be her brother Sebastian, but also through the character Duke (Channing Tatum), Viola’s love interest and unsuspecting roommate. We think of him initially as the stereotype selfish jock only interested in girls for physical entertainment with his major concern scoring on and off the field. But as the story unfolds, we see him as a sensitive, shy individual who wants a relationship that is as much, or more, based upon friendship as lust.

I highly recommend this movie for a couple of hours of just plain old entertainment. You will have no choice but to laugh out loud and when all is said and done, you will come out of the theater with a warm feeling. What better way to spend an evening.

~PapaBear

—1. Overview

Take the Lead (2006)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:53:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Dance)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

“It takes courage to lead, but it takes as much courage to follow”. And in my opinion, sometimes it takes more. These words are spoken by Pierre Dulaine (played by Antonio Banderas) to two of his students Rock (played by Rob Brown) and LaRhette (played by Yaya DaCosta). A great story-line and a great message.

Take the Lead is based upon the true story of Pierre Dulaine who believed that dance could help students at an inner New York City high school to learn to respect each other, build their confidence, and dream of what could be tomorrow instead of wallowing on what is today. A future.

The story has a sort of To Sir with Love feel to it, though the old 1960’s film had originality to it that no other movie can quite copy. Yet Take the Lead has its story to tell and does it well. The funny thing is that if it weren’t a true story, the movie wouldn’t be believable. A bunch of “school rejects”, who have permanent residence in Detention, not only learning ballroom dancing, but enjoying it.

The music was great. Not only some real classic ballroom dance music and more up to date popular songs, but even a blend of the two to show how they are not so different if you only try to work them together. A lot like different people.

I really enjoyed Banderas’ performance and that of many of his students. It was interesting to see Lauen Collins, Paige of DeGrassi fame (who plays Caitlin in the film) as the uptown rich girl voluntarily hanging out with the “school rejects” because of her love of dance. Something that she had in common with the “rejects”.

The dance numbers, both hip-hop/rap and ballroom, were entertaining and kept you enthralled as the story unfolded. To see the change in Dulaine’s students was really inspiring, especially since you knew it was based on a true story. Even if it wasn’t successful, I can’t imagine how someone could just come off the street and volunteer to try and teach inner city kids ballroom dance. I was impressed with how he related dance to life – even in the inner city. But what makes it even more impressive is that it was a success. Today, from Dulaine’s initial program, there are now 42 dance instructors in over 120 New York City schools – I would call that a success. Teaching kids about dignity, trust, respect and many basic characteristics that many of these kids might not get even in their own home. Oh, yeah, and how to dance.

I highly recommend this movie for a feel good time. Either with friends or on a date, you will come out inspired and doing a little toe tapping along the way. And oh yeah, the opening line I used was part of a longer speech where Dulaine started by telling Rock that Rock had to have the courage and confidence to lead, to take the first step and guide LaRhette. At which LaRhette countered that she was supposed to just let Rock be the boss. This is where Dulaine opened her eyes (and I must admit mine), that Rock can take the first action, to lead, but it was up to LaRhette to make the choice to follow or not. To have the courage, and most importantly, the trust to follow Rock’s lead. Believe me following is hard to do. And from my many years of experience, you can’t lead until you learn how to follow.

— Overview

Glory Road (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:49:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Josh Lucas)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

Last night I sat in a packed theater and watched an advance screening of Glory Road. Normally I view a movie for not only it’s entertainment value, but also to see what the movie says to me, what gives the movie it’s spirit -- or what is the Spirit in the Movie. I find that there are one or two things that the characters will say that capture this spirit. In the case of Glory Road, for me, it was when Coach Haskins (played by Josh Lucas) says to one of the basketball players, Bobby Joe Hill (played by Derek Luke) after Bobby states that the bigots and others were “taking away their dignity”. Haskins says “Your dignity is in you, and no one can take it away unless you give it to them”.

If you are not aware of the movie’s plot, it is about a new coach (Haskins) who is a high school girl’s basketball coach who is hired to coach at a small college in El Paso, Texas – Texas Western College. The main reason he is hired is to keep the boys dorm under control – no one expects him to do much of anything with the basketball team. But Haskins surprises everyone by going out to Detroit, New York City, and other cities to recruit players that had been ignored by most other colleges. Not because they were bad players, but because they were Negroes.

The movie is based on a true story and is set in 1965-1966. Very few Blacks played on college basketball teams, especially in Div I – the league of the elite athletic schools like the Kentucky Jay Hawks. And definitely not as “Starters”. Yes, there may be one Black Starter on one or two teams, but a oddity at best. Coach Haskins with virtually no recruiting budget and from a school without any athletic reputation to draw the better players, Haskins went out and as he told one of the players when he was recruiting them – he isn’t interested in the color of the player, but the skill of the player. So, as a result the Texas Western Miners fielded a 1965 basketball team with 7 Blacks out of their 12 players.

This movie was one of the better “Sports” films I have seen, but it was so much more. It could just as easily have been social commentary on the United States in the 60’s. Sort of like a “Remember the Titans” type of film. I attended the movie with my 15 year old daughter and we were both looking forward to the movie, but it exceeded both our expectations. There was the excitement of sports – even though I knew what was going to happen, I was on the edge of my seat (sort of like I was watching the final hockey game in “Miracle”). It provided some interesting conversation between my daughter and I as it brought home the problems of the South during that time in our history. And as an extra added benefit, there was a lot of humor to offset the inherent drama of the story. In fact, we both found ourselves (along with the entire audience) laughing quite a bit of the time. A nice contrast (like hot fudge on cold ice cream).

From everything I have read leading up to the film, the movie takes some liberties with the true story (e.g. Coach Haskins was at the college for 5 years before going to the NCAA tournament and other events that led up to the tournament). However, the important events and core themes portrayed in the movie are factual and relevant to what happened to the coach and these players. For instance, the players (both Black and others) and the coaches received a lot of harassment whenever they took to the court and even off. They were threatened, they were abused….and they never gave up.

Luckily the audience was warned that we should hang around through the credits because some of the original players and coaches are shown during commenting on the historic events of that time, along with some original clips from the final NCAA Championship game of 1966. One comment from Pat Riley (who was the star Forward for the Kentucky Jay Hawks, during that championship game, and later became one of the most popular players in the NBA) really stuck with me long after the lights came up. He captured what I thought was an important aspect of the real life event when he stated that the NCAA Basketball Championship game of 1996, and what Coach Haskin and his players did was more than just win a game, it was, in Riley’s words “the emancipation proclamation of 1966”. And its impact went well beyond just the sport of college basketball. It changed the view and perspective of many people in all parts of our society. I highly recommend that when the movie ends – stay in your seat and watch this short commentary.

— Overview

DOWNLOADABLE BIBLE STUDY GUIDE
PDF Format
and Production Notes
Word Format

Fun with Dick & Jane (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 22:10:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters(Jim Carrey)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

“Sometimes, the best cure is a Clean Conscious”. A very insightful comment by Dick Harper (played by Jim Carrey) that helps one to understand the Message in the Movie. Fun with Dick and Jane is a remake of 1977 movie, by the same name, that starred George Segal and Jane Fonda. There has been a flood of movies remaking hits, primarily from the 70s, and actually the mid-70s (e.g. Longest Yard, Bad News Bears). Does that say something about that time in history? Hmmmm, don’t know, but an interesting topic that maybe we should visit sometime.

As with many of this year’s remakes, this one was an excellent update to a strange, yet somehow understandable story-line. The Director was able to take this story, set in the 70s, and update it so it felt familiar in the 21st century. This would be even funnier if bad fortunes weren’t true life for many people. But making a farce out of the failure of large corporations and the sudden change in fortune for many people is maybe just what a lot of people need to see. Especially when the management of the corporation is made out to be such vile villains – makes it seem normal.

Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni (Jane) give great performances as the married couple who are on top of the world, living the American Dream, when they are stuck with the American Reality. Alec Baldwin, as Jack McCallister the CEO of the Globodyne (an Enron-like company), comes across as the perfect bad guy. Together they provide a great cast for this film.

Whereas the original 1970s version of the film was also billed as a comedy, this new version was funnier (duh – Carrey) and while still attempting to provide a social commentary on big business, the timing is a bit difference. We have become used to the giant corporations toying with the life of it’s employees and stockholders; and have become almost numb to the daily slashing and cutting. But I guess that is part of the difference between the 1970s and the 21st century – the movie, Texas Chainsaw Murders (1974), was a shocker back then also. Almost sad that we are little affected by either.

Social commentary aside, I really enjoyed this film. It is hard to not laugh at Carrey when he is on a role and really trying to be funny (which he was in this flick). And I have loved Leoni every since she starred in Spanglish with Adam Sandler. Your side will definitely be a hurting at the end of this movie.

Some people will be concerned that the movie is about a couple who end up in a life of crime and wonder how I can promote such a story. Well, if you look at it on the surface, than you would probably be right. However, if you look at the Message in the Movie, you come away with a whole different view of what takes place.

First, we need to look at what happens to this couple. Just about everything that can happen to really mess their lives up. You can almost see Job going through the same thing and saying to himself – why me? But even with everything that happens to Dick and Jane. They have each other. At first there was some blame by Jane, but as things got worse, they got closer. No matter what the world through at them, they got through it – and I believe it was because they had each other.

And, I think everything that happened to them was necessary. I have had a lot of hard times in my life. I used to ask why God did these things to me. There came a point where someone told me that it wasn’t God doing anything to me. It was people doing stuff to me (and some might say Satan), and in many cases, I was doing it to myself. But that God was always there with me – not necessarily making my life easy or making everything go away – but giving me the strength to get through it. At first I couldn’t understand this. It made no sense. Why would God let me go through everything I would go through? And then I read a verse in the bible where it said that all things were for God’s plan and that God let me experience many things so that I would be prepared to deal with things that much harder.

This turned out to be true for me and I think it was true for Dick and Jane. All the hard times that they went through made them learn how to be crooks. Yes, that is not good. However, if they had not learned the skills necessary to perform their thefts, and more importantly the bravado to carry out the thefts, they would never had been able to carry out their final mission and change the lives of thousands of their pervious co-workers. I can not imagine Dick and Jane, prior to their life of crime, having the guts, timing, or flexibility to, when faced with challenge of helping out their co-workers (and subsequently themselves), find “the best cure…” and have a “clean conscious”.

All-in-all, I highly recommend this movie to everyone. A good time and well worth the price. Enjoy a funny flick this new year and check out Fun with Dick and Jane.

—Overview

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:33:00 +0000

—1. Overview
—2. Reviews and Blogs
—3. Cast and Crew
—4. Photo Pages
—5. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—6. Posters
—7. Production Notes (pdf)
—8. Spiritual Connections
—9. Presentation Downloads

The Chronicles of Narnia was an unbelievably beautiful and moving film. I have to admit that I was a bit skeptical before attending the advance screening of The Chronicles of Narnia. I was both excited, having anticipated this release for a long time, but simultaneously concerned that it couldn’t possibly live up to my expectations. Well, I can tell you truthfully that I was wrong. It not only lived up to my expectations – it exceeded them. But as a measure of my own reaction I sometimes check with my teenage daughter to see how she feels about a movie (acts as a counter to make sure I am not viewing it from my older, much older perspective). So, if you don’t want to take my word for it, my daughter said it was the best movie she has ever seen and plans to see it at the theater several times.

First let me tell you that if you enjoyed C.S. Lewis’ book as a child, you will be brought back to that time of wonderment when you watch this film. The film stayed as true to the book as is possible with any movie. And if not a word-for-word recount of the original book, I believe that it certainly maintained the intent Lewis wished to convey. I am sure this faithfulness to the original story was the result of Douglas Gresham involvement. Gresham is C.S. Lewis’ stepson and was co-producer of the film adaptation. He also recently published a biography of his stepfather called, "Jack's Life"; which I heard was very detailed and insightful. He has been steadfast, in the past, to maintain the integrity of Lewis’ work. This was not the first request to bring The Chronicles of Narnia to the screen, but the first time that the Lewis estate (including Gresham) has approved the adaptation -- which should say something about this production.

As the movie opened I wasn’t sure how it would flow. After seeing the big battle scene in the movie trailer and knowing that the Director, Andrew Adamson, was another New Zealander, I was thinking – oh-oh, another Lord of the Rings. That they were going to try and build on the success of LoTRs and duplicate it’s action and activity. And even though I LOVED Lord of the Rings, I did not want to see Lewis’ book remade as a copy of the LoTRs.

To my relief, Narnia is not a repeat of LoTRs at all, but a movie that stands on its own. Not to spoil it for anyone, but while the battle shown in the movie trailer is very important to the story – and pretty magnificent in itself, it is only a part of the movie, not the majority of the movie as portrayed in the trailer. The real story is in the individual actions of the characters. I was enthralled with not only the epic story, but the actors, the special effects, and the cinematography. And let me say, the cinematography was exceptional. While LoTRs showed the grander and scope of the landscape, Narnia focused on the intimacy of the characters. The use of close-ups at the beginning gave you a real feel for the wonder young Lucy experienced as she innocently explored the snowy woods of Narnia. I actually felt like a little kid as she wandered around looking up at the falling snowflakes and her amazement at the single light-post in the middle of the forest.

I think this was one of the biggest differences between the two movies. The scope. LoTRs also had many personal stories and issues that the characters dealt with, but Narnia made this the central focus of the movie.

The CGI effects in this movie are no less phenomenal than the cinematography. Again, when watching the movie trailers (which does not do the movie justice at all) I got the impression that the “talking animals” were almost cartoonish. But as I sat in the theater and watched the interchange between Mr. Beaver and Mrs. Beaver, or watched Aslan’s sacrifice – you really had to remind yourself – animal’s can’t talk.

I was very impressed with the young actors that portrayed the four Pevensie children. From the oldest Willaim Mosely (Peter) at 18, Anna Popplewell (Susan) who turn 17 next week, Skandar Keynes (Edmund) at 14, to the youngest Georgie Henley (Lucy) at just 10 year of age – they all brought their characters to the screen with extensive realism. You just wanted to sit Edmund down at the beginning of the film and tell him to quit being so selfish. And little Lucy – again, you just got to love her. And Peter, the reluctant leader (hmmmm, sounds like another Peter I have heard about). And you would not want to meet Jadis, the White Witch (played by Tilda Swinton) in a dark ally (especially on a snowy night).

The Message in the Movie is pretty obvious. C.S. Lewis wrote this book as an analogy of the Gospels. And that comes across without too much imagination. And this also came across in the film adaptation. But what surprised me was the intimacy that was portrayed. I looked around the audience, during the analogy scenes of Christ’s sacrifice, and saw many tears. Many films have portrayed the Gospel’s from Jesus perspective – what he went through. But in this movie, you see it from the perspective of those around Aslan (the lion and analogical creature representing Christ). The personal experiences of these followers and how they are impacted by their relationship with Aslan.

But while the message was pretty obvious, I was surprise (or maybe shouldn’t have been) that some people missed the intent of the film. In the theater I was sitting in the Press section with other Reviewers. I started up a conversation with a man sitting next to me. We had dissimilar backgrounds and Reviewed for somewhat different outlets. So I was curious to find out his reaction to the film as we left the theater. He did not like the film at all. When I asked why, he responded, “For a movie that is supposed to be all about Love and Peace, how could they put all that violence in it.” Needless to say I was floored, and realized that not everyone would get the movie. I started to explain that, yes, it was all about Love, but not the boy-meets-girl type of love, but a Sacrificial Love and a Love that far exceeds what one sees in a Romantic Comedy or Drama. And that this type of Love was not always pretty. That sometimes it required you to fight for it. And that from this fight Peace can eventually come, but not without some effort. Yet, I could tell from this person’s look and attitude, that they weren’t ready to hear my explanation. What I, and evidently many others, saw in the film was a beautiful story of love and forgiveness and redemption. What this other person saw was just a story with a climatic battle. But I guess that what movies are all about. Everyone sees something different.

I have heard that Disney and Walden are considering a number of sequels to “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” depending upon the success of this release. From the reaction of the crowd (I have only seen the audience applaud a film like I saw this audience do) I think we can easily expect to see the sequels. And from what I have heard, this will most likely be the Prince of Caspian.

Also, you might check out the several sound tracks for the film. It reads like a head-liners list for the Gospel Music Awards. Stephen Curtis Chapman, Jars of Clay, Kutless, Delirious?, Jeremy Camp, Rebecca St. James, Nichole Nordem

—Overview
—Reviews and Blogs

Yours, Mine & Ours (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:33:00 +0000

—1. Overview (multimedia)
—2. Overview Basic (dial up speed)
—3. Reviews and Blogs
—4. Cast and Crew
—5. Photo Pages
—6. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—7. Posters (Dennis Quaid)
—8. Production Notes (pdf)
—9. Spiritual Connections
—10. Presentation Downloads

Ever wished you were part of a big family, or want to have one of your own some day? Well, watch this movie first! It might sway you one way or the other. And even if you don’t have any desire for big families, you should catch this film. It is hilarious with one comedic situation on the heels of another. After all, take one single parent who runs his family of eight children with the same militaristic organization talents that made him an admiral in the Coast Guard; and another hippy-like single parent whose number one rule, for her ten children, is “A house is not for impression, but free expression”. Put them together and it doesn’t take much imagination to come up with a humorous storyline.

What’s even more impressive is that this is based upon a real story. Helen Beardsley (played by Rene Russo in this remake) wrote a book called “Who Gets the Drumstick”; which described the logistical nightmare of raising 20 kids. Yes, that’s right – 20! As with both the 1968 version and this latest remake, the story follows the real life story of a widow with eight children who marries a Helen Beardsley, a widower with 10 kids of her own. In the 1968 version, the family is finally brought together with the impending departure of the oldest boy, to the military, and with the birth of #19. In the 2005 version the story ends a little sooner before any additional children are born. Interesting enough, the real life story is even more interesting as Helen tries to deal with 20 kids. Helen died in 2000, at the age of 70, but it was reported that she had said – she didn’t understand how anyone could enjoy life with just a dozen or so kids around :0)

If this storyline sounds familiar, it is. In the last few years we have seen a resurgence of re-makes. And this is another one. But fortunately, this one was a success. The original film was produced in 1968 and starred Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball. Less prankfalls, but funny nonetheless. The same story with a widow and widower falling in love and then trying to make one family out of their 18 non-cooperating children. With the expected results. So, the newly released “Yours, Mine, and Ours” is just an old story. In fact the description at movies.yahoo.com is exactly the same for both versions:

“A widow and widower fall in love and get married, but the resulting combined eighteen children make for a hair-raising situation under one roof.”

But even though they have the same plot and the stories are different somewhat. In factg, having seen both, I would say that there is one big difference between the 1968 version and this remake. CHANGE. Which is a big part of the new release. And not only Change, but how we handle it. Yes, in the original there was some of this. However, in the original film Henry Fonda is a Naval Officer and Lucille Ball is the widow of a Naval Officer. So, while there was a lot of adjustment for the two families to come together, there was a lot similarity in their family structures. So the while the original dealt with the basic issues of blending two families, it dealt with issues that many families have dealt with and even more so with families breaking up and forming new family units. The original film just dealt with it on a larger scale.

But what Fonda and Ball had to deal with was nothing compared to what the new version brought to the big screen. Dennis Quad and Rene Russo not only had to bring two families together, but the cultural and social differences in these families provided a ravenous gap that had to be crossed to make them one family.

This provides the viewer interesting insight into the conflict and eventual compromise required for different people to live together. At first these children are in total denial of the marriage and find that each other’s previous lifestyle creates such drama and irritation that they can barely stand to be in the presence of each other. They even go to the extreme of destroying the one thing that has finally made their individual parent’s lives complete. Yet, the longer they are “stuck” together, the more they begin to appreciate the differences and even eventually find that these differences compliment their own characteristics. And yes, the world is a much better place when we learn to live with one another. We can accomplish so much more – as shown at the end of the film when this newly formed family has to leave a message on their answering maching. A lesson many of us could take to heart.

I found this version both funny and heartwarming. And even though the outcome is predictable, it is worth going to see. There are lots of silly and outrageously funny scenes (that don’t show up in the Trailers) and the romance between Dennis Quad and Rene Russo feels genuine (though I thought that the film transitioned a little too quickly from their reunion – 30 years after being high school sweethearts – to “we’re married). The use of the lighthouse, though also predictable, was well played and nearly had me teary-eyed.

As with most movies, there is not just one Message in the Movie. As I already talked about, learning that we shouldn’t fear change, but should embrace it is an important message we come away with from this film. Learning how to compromise and accept others for what they are, while not forgetting who we are ourselves, can make us all better and we can accomplish so much more. And, of course, that family is important and something we all need. Even if one of us is Academy bound and the other is a rock star, or one is a cheerleader and the other is folksinger. Family goes beyond these differences. Family is one of those many, yet very important, things that make us who we are and helps us to find our identity.

—Overview (multimedia)
—Reviews and Blogs

Just Friends (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:50:00 +0000

—1. Overview (multimedia)
—2. Overview Basic (dial up speed)
—3. Reviews and Blogs
—4. Cast and Crew
—5. Photo Pages
—6. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—7. Posters (comedy films)
—8. Production Notes (pdf)
—9. Spiritual Connections
—10. Presentation Downloads

The Ugly Duckling meets the Three Stooges. This isn’t an exact description of the film Best Friends, but gives you an idea. Take one over weight and shy teenager (a.k.a. the school loser), then fast forward 10 years. In the beginning of the movie Chris Brander (played by Ryan Reynolds of “The Wedding Party”, “Amityville Horror” and “Waiting”) is the epitome of the lonely kid that everyone makes fun of and avoids (except to make fun of) – with the exception of two friends and his closest buddy, Jamie Palamino (played by Amy Smart who has a long list of performances including “Win a Date with Tad Hamilton” and “The Butterfly Effect). And as much as Chris is the class loser, Jamie is just the opposite – a beautiful and popular cheerleader.

Which makes it interesting because Chris and Jamie aren’t just friends, they are the closest of buds, helping each other out and sharing the deepest secrets. Well, all except one really big secret. The one where Chris is really in “love” with Jamie. And on graduation night, Chris finally gets up the nerve to tell Jamie – but only gets in return the infamous “Just Friends” speech. This separates Chris and Jamie for ten long and life-changing years; which is where the real story begins.

Like the Ugly Duckling, Chris goes through a transformation and becomes a successful LA music executive with all the stereotype money, models, and lifestyle that goes with the title. Seeing Chris at the beginning reminded of how the Ugly Duckling felt in Hans Christian Andersons’ fable. There is a line in it where it says that the Ugly Duckling “wasn’t pretty, and since he ate far more than his brothers, he was outgrowing them” and the Ugly Duckling laments “Nobody loves me, they all tease me! Why am I different from my brothers?” But then after some time working on himself in LA, he comes back to his home town in New Jersey transformed into the beautiful swan (which was in him all the time anyways).

But the story doesn’t stop there. As it says at the end of the Ugly Duckling fable “One day, he heard children on the river bank exclaim: ‘Look at that young swan! He’s the finest of them all!’ And he almost burst with happiness.” Now this is where the story begins to twist and turn from the fable. Imagine if the swan (a.k.a. Ugly Duckling) determined that “yes, it was the finest. And not only that, but it was even better than all the rest of the swans.” That’s how this story goes. Chris has become exactly the “bad boy” stereotype that Jamie had dated throughout high school. Relationships had become a game. If you made the right moves, you score – then move on to the next challenge. And when Chris accidentally finds himself in his hometown and runs into Jamie, as the new-and-improved Chris Brander, he believes that now, finally, he can score with Jamie. But we are told that Jamie has matured and is looking for more. This sets the background for the bulk of the movie.

I would say as a romantic comedy, this had a lot more comedy than romance. Yes, there is a romantic tale that is woven into the fabric of the film, but it seemed that this only provided a backdrop for the real purpose of the movie – slapstick at it’s finest. This is where the three stooges analogy comes in for those of you that have not been following along :0). Ryan Reynolds is a pro at the slap and fall routine. And he is at his best in this genre for this movie. His little brother in the movie, Mike, is played by Christopher Marquette (known for “The Girl Next Door” and my favorite cancelled show as Adam in “Joan of Arcadia”). From the very first time that the two of them are together in a scene, it is like watching the three stooges (minus one). They are constantly beating up on each other, like real siblings, though a little bit extreme. Plus I don’t know too many men in their late twenties who go at it like Chris and Mike do. But this leads us into much of the slapstick comedy which this movie hinges on. Even as I write this Review I am still laughing at many of the scenes (Chris flying down a slope on a stretcher and landing face first on the ice). Add to this the over exaggerated role of Samantha James (played by Anna Faris). Her role as a whacked out California pop singer is just crazy enough to provide a great contrast between Chris’ current LA lifestyle and the life he left behind in New Jersey. Not only this, but at times, she provides the third stooge with spurts of slapstick comedy.

Of course, it all ends up ok and love conquers all :-) But the real Message in the Movie wasn’t about how love conquers all. In fact, like I said, the love story was secondary to much of the film. The real message is about finding who you really are, and to some degree about family. The second message came somewhat as a shock to me and showed up suddenly – and only momentarily. At one point, amongst all the fighting between Chris and his brother Mike, there is a scene where Mike is headed upstairs, eating a cookie, and grabs another one before heading up the stairs. Chris is standing in his room staring at a passed out Samantha as Mike walks in and stands next to him. In every scene leading up to this Mike taunts Chris (like most little brothers) and then gets beat up by Chris. But in this scene, just when you are waiting for the vicious attack, Mike hands Chris the other cookie and says “I love ya”, and Chris responds, “I love you too”. And that’s the scene. It was like wow! We forget that love isn’t always expressed with flowers, a fine dinner, or presents. Sometimes it is expressed in the only way that two people can communicate. Not that I am saying by any means that it is okay for someone to hit someone else. But siblings compete amongst themselves (which is fairly common) and in the case of Chris and Mike, this shown through their taunting and fighting. But I also imagine that if anyone else attacked one of them, the other would be right there to defend them. They can fight, but don’t let anyone mess with their family.

The other, more prominent Message is that of finding out who oneself is, and being that person. Chris became what Jamie had always wanted (in the past), but now she had outgrown that type of person. He had gone from the Ugly Duckling to the Swan on the outside, but had gone from the Swan to the Ugly Duckling on the inside. When, in high school, he had Jamie in his life and that had provided stabilization and focus for his life. When they separated, Chris lost his way, as if he was in the darkness without a light. It was when he reconnected with his source of life, Jamie, and she showed him the light, that he finally understood that it wasn’t whether you were an Ugly Duckling or a Swan. It is all about if you are the “real” you – and what sort of person are you. This reminded me of how I feel when I become disconnected from God (which happens probably way too often). Lost, though I think I am happy. It is only when I come back to God, see His light, and realize who I really am. Not just a lonely person out there by myself, but part of a family that (yes I fight with too often), greater than any family I could ever imagine. And a family where I can be the “real” me. That is when I really find happiness.

—Overview (multimedia)
—Reviews and Blogs

Serenity (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:40:00 +0000

—1. Overview (multimedia)
—2. Overview Basic (dial up speed)
—3. Reviews and Blogs
—4. Cast and Crew
—5. Photo Pages
—6. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—7. Posters
—8. Production Notes (pdf)
—9. Spiritual Connections

“If you can’t do something smart…do something right.” This quote, from one of Serenity’s crew just about summarizes the story-line. Serenity, a space ship that travels the edges of the galaxy, is the container for a crew of veterans from the losing side of a galatic civil war, and the setting for a really great movie. This movie from the well known writer/directory Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire, Angel, and Firefly) is a magnificant story that interweaves suspence, drama, political commentary, and comedy into one big ball of fun and excitement.

As any fan of the cancelled TV show Firefly can tell you, Serentiy is a "Firefly-class" starship (which gave the TV show it’s name), and that is the central location for both the TV show and the movie. I will have to admit that when I attended the advance screening of the movie I had never seen an episode of the original Firefly show, nor had I seen very many episodes of Buffy or Angel – but it was evident that I was one of the few in the theater who hadn’t. My expectation of the film was another sci-fi flick with good humans vs. bad aliens or good aliens help good humans against bad humans/aliens. Don’t get me wrong, I love sci-fi – one of my favorite shows is the new BattleStar Galatica – and I am a Star Wars junky. I just hadn’t seen too many good sci-fi movies coming out recently other than the big production numbers like Star Wars. And I knew that Serenity was not a big dollar production (comparably speaking) -- like only 1/4 the cost of Batman Begins.

But I was more than pleasantly surprised. Not an alien in the bunch and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. And as such, I won’t wait until the end of the review to highly recommend this movie to everyone, not just Firefly fans. It is awesome – go see it. Even though Serenity’s director Whedon attempted to continue, and possibly wrap up, the story of the Firefly TV series (to go as far as using the original TV cast for the movie), I did not find it difficult at all to follow. This was a concern as I knew that the movie played heavily on the storyline of the TV show, but this was not an issue. Instead, this film will end up costing me more than I thought – because I liked it so much I now have to go out and buy the Firefly series on DVD to see what I have been missing.

When the movie first started out I was sitting and wondering – wow, this is going to be intense. The first set of scenes were definitely action-packed and had me jumping in my seat a couple of times. Then we meet the crew of Serenity and immediately I am laughing at the banter between them. The movie is filled with action, nearly non-stop, and many suspenseful (almost scary) scenes, but this is off-set by the dialogue and action of the characters that is such a contrast to the intensity of the action, that it makes for a really enjoyable movie. This was somewhat similar to the mixed humor and action in the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith, but different at the same time. In Mr. & Mrs. Smith, the comedic dialogue was perpendicular to the characters, which made it different and interesting. But in Serenity (and as I understand in the Firefly series) the dialogue fits the characters. You expect it from them. I think this is particular what gives the movie such a unique feel and made it that much more enjoyable.

In an interview with LookingCloser.org on September 18th 2005 the director Joss Whedon explained his use of dialogue as follow:

“The most important thing to me is finding everybody’s voice very specifically. I build shows and movies on what I refer to as ‘the Golden Girls model,’ which is, very simply, everybody’s gotta come from a different place, so that everybody’s reaction to something is different and equally valid and equally fun.

Never having anybody say anything that isn’t the next thing they’d say, that isn’t their point of view, that isn’t their perspective… that’s where the humor comes from. Jayne’s perspective on the situation will be different than everybody else’s, and when he speaks, that makes it funny. But at the same time, that’s what makes it valid.”

And I believe that Whedon accomplished exactly this in his characters and their interaction with each other. Beyond the dialogue and action, the characters themself were intriguing and delightful. As stated in the above quote, each character is distinctly different, but not so much so that it would seem unusual. More like the type of differentiation you would find in any group of a half dozen people. Each character comes from a different background and each has their own distinct reaction to each situation; which as in real life, only adds to the drama and comedy.

I was particularly intrigued with the character of River Tam, or the Fugitive, played by Summer Glau. Playing a 17 year old girl who, a telepath/physic, that has been experimented on by the Alliance’s scientist, Summer (who is actually 24) plays the role perfectly. I was rolling on the floor laughing (rotfl) several times when Summer would roll her eyes or cringe her face all up when someone questioned what she said or indicated. It was the facial expression that is universal among teenagers, as if responsing – “how dare you question me!” When I found out she had been a premier ballerina, it helped to explain some of the convoluted positions she got herself into and the way she literally danced through the more intense fight scenes.

Besides being a great movie, I found a number of Messages in the Movie that I thought worth relaying. First off you have to understand that the director, Joss Whedon is a self-proclaimed Atheist. This isn’t really critical to the value of the movie or be a deciding factor whether someone sees it or not, but it does create some interesting points when we look underneath the covers of the movie.

One thing I found interesting in the movie and was informed by some ardent Firefly fans was a critical point in the TV series is the character called the Shepherd. Shepherd Book is a devout Catholic (500 years in the future) and leader of a safe haven that evidently has more than once welcomed the crew of Serenity and provided them shelter. On the other hand, Malcolm (Mal) Reynolds (played by Nathan Fillion), Captain of Serenity, admittedly is not a Christian and, to Shepherd Book’s disappointment, appears to have no belief in anything, God or anything else. Yet they seem to be old friends and get along well. This is an important message for both Christians and non-Christians alike.

But to take it a bit further, in the same LookingCloser.com interview Whedon was asked about the relationship between Shepherd Book and Mal, and that by raising the issues about faith and God indicated that possibly Whedon was trying to bring something spiritual across in Firefly [and subsequently Serenity]. His {excerpted] response was:

“I think we all have different takes on it, we all have different things to say about spirituality…in Firefly there was a conflict between Mal and the Shepherd that was deliberate, which was that Mal is an atheist and he’s beyond that… kind of faithless. He doesn’t trust people. He doesn’t really think of anything as a greater good. Even though he has a moral code himself, he can’t really admit or understand it. Shepherd Book is very clear on his faith, and there was a conflict between the two of them that was supposed to be ongoing throughout the series.

Obviously, the movie being more about answers, I had one definitive statement to make, which was simply [that] the power of belief, the power of something greater than yourself doesn’t necessarily have to mean religion.

Shepherd Book himself says that. He doesn’t say, ‘Find God.’ He says, ‘Find your way.’

Shepherd Book obviously believes in God. He believes that God is a part of what’s going on. Mal doesn’t, but Shepherd doesn’t judge him for that [Message here for everyone]. He says, ‘The point is not whether or not you believe what I believe. The point is that you don’t believe in anything. And it’s killing you. And it’s tearing your crew apart. And it’s making you do stupid things.’

The word ‘belief’ comes into the film a lot for that reason. It’s a simple act of subsuming yourself to the idea of something that is great. Believing that there is something worth structuring your life around that will direct your moral decisions, and sometimes [help] you make harder decisions… that is important. What that belief is... is not.”

I think Whedon is correct in that having a belief in something is important. This is where hope comes from. But I feel certain that what you believe in is important and while the opening statement of this review: “If you can’t do something smart…do something right.” summarized the storyline, similarly I think one of the ending speeches by Captain Malcolm Reynolds summarizes the two main Messages of the Movie. As Serenity lifts off in a storm; Reynolds states that they will pass through it soon enough. It captured for me the theme of the movie. That life is not be easy, but through love, shown in their devotion and sacrifice for each other; that they would somehow get through it. It instantly brought back to me a prayer I heard many years ago and have repeated a number of times since – “Lord, I don’t expect you to stop the storm for me, but just hold me until it’s over”.

The other Message for me was when Reynolds ask the question if they knew what the most important thing about flying a ship was. His answer was Love. Love is what keeps the ship in the air. Love is what makes it a home. So as it turns out, Reynolds does believe in something after all. Love. Which again got me thinking about what it says in the Bible -- specifically in the book of 1 John. Basically, and as I have heard it paraphrased many times, “God is Love, and Love is God”. I wonder what Shepherd Book would have said about that?

—1. Overview (multimedia)
—2. Overview Basic (dial up speed)
—3. Reviews and Blogs
—4. Cast and Crew
—5. Photo Pages
—6. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—7. Posters
—8. Production Notes (pdf)
—9. Spiritual Connections

40 Year Old Virgin

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:39:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf

Ok, I went to see 40 Year Old Virgin (40YOV) tonight. First chance I had. I was really looking forward to it because I had heard it was number one in the box office last weekend. I had also heard that it had a real sweet message. My only hesitancy was that I had also heard it was a bit raunchy with some profanity. But I had heard the same about Wedding Crashers and I really loved Wedding Crashers.

So I know I am going to probably get a lot of hate e-mails on this one (ppl that like reviews generally don’t send e-mails J). But I thought, and I may be the only Reviewer to take this stance, that it was one of the worse movies I have seen this year. Especially in light of all the other great movies out this Summer.

But hear me out before you start telling me what a jerk I am and that all the other Reviewers loved the film. You may think I hated it because it was full of profanity and took stereotypes way beyond any reasonable imagination? Not really. I had heard much worse things about Wedding Crashers, that it was really raunchy – and I loved Wedding Crashers – one of the funniest movies I have seen this year. I am generally not bothered by profanity, nudity, or any of the other common reasons for a “R” rating – though I am not a big blood and gore fan. No, it was something else.

The Wedding Crashers had storyline that was supported by the profanity and sexual scenes. There was a reason for this in the film. There were various themes in it that I felt were well worth dealing with the raunchiness. But 40 YOV was a totally different film. I laughed a lot in both of the movies, but with 40YOV I realized about halfway through the flick that I was becoming extremely aggravated – don’t know quite how to explain it, but it was like I felt like punching something. It was sort of how I felt after 9/11.

Yes, the profanity was sharp, but it was really taken a little too far and while it is common use within films to use stereotypes and exaggeration to make it easier for the audience to understand the nature of the characters, this film goes way too far. According to this film every man is sex crazed maniac, unless you happen to be an inept nerd – and even then, you aren’t constantly “scoring” unless you are just unlucky. And nearly every woman is a stupid, drunken, whore. Even the “nice” girl has a mouth like a drunken sailor when she thinks she’s on the phone with a telemarketer. I think this is part of why I was getting aggravated.

While Wedding Crashers used sexual liaisons as a background for the storyline and strategically placed profanity to emphasize feelings, 40 YOV did just the opposite and I felt that the Director had decided to create as “shocking” a film as they could and then decided to fit some type of storyline after the fact. There is a trend in recent movies to create down and dirty “R” rated movies, but then incorporate a viable Message in the Movie with some decent moralistic value. Example is Wedding Crashers; where Owen Wilson began to realize that he and his buddy’s hobby of crashing weddings to get great food and “score” one-night stands – and then the relationship between the two friends themselves. I have no problem with this, but I think 40YOV missed the mark.

I will admit at this point that I knew about the Message at the end of the 40 YOV, but I never made it. I tried really hard to hang in there to get to the Message, but I couldn’t – at one point I got so aggravated and sick of the constantly bashing, and admittedly I found myself laughing and then thinking how terrible it was that I was laughing at the scene – that I finally just got up and walked out of the movie (which if you know me takes quite a bit – after all – I paid money and hate to throw it away).

But from talking with other Reviewers who were able to suffer through the film to the final line, even the Message is somewhat tainted because the 40 Year Old Virgin was a virgin out of a series of unfortunate events and not because of his desire to stay pure all those years – instead it was because he was an inept nerd who wanted to “score”, but just couldn’t. I will have to admit that the fact that Andy, played by Steve Carrell, did not want to go along with his new buddies in most of their women hunting events had some redeeming value – but even in this, it was because he was just afraid it would be another disastrous outing for him.

I had stated in my review of the Wedding Crashers that “if you can wade through some of the more offensive moments (which are, in the case of this movie, necessary to the film’s story), then this is a must see.” Unfortunately, I can not say the same about 40 Year Old Virgin. It had little value, if any, and unless you enjoy being constantly bombarded with the gross devaluation of both men and women, and overly foul language just for the sake of trying to shock the audience, this movie is a definite NOT see. It goes to the bottom of my 2005 list. There are so many other good movies out this Summer – see one of them, or even re-see a good movie you have already seen – but do not waste your time on this flick.

Continue:
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf

Sky High (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:15:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

“My girlfriend becomes my arch enemy, my arch enemy becomes my best friend, and my best friend becomes my girlfriend. But hey, that’s high school.” This statement in the movie pretty much sums up the movie’s plot; and after having volunteered with high school youth groups for over 8 years, also is an accurate description of life in high school.

I wasn’t too sure about this movie when the lights went down (and I had a lot more time to consider my misgivings as I sat through 10+ minutes of commercials before I even go to the previews). It sounded like a poor attempt to create a real life version of the Incredibles and from what trailers I had seen it seemed like it was just going to be a dumb and dumber version of the Incredibles.

But I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it was kind of hokey at times, but overall it was a pretty good movie. It won’t make my list of movies that I would pay to go see a second time at the theater, but I would sit down and watch the DVD with someone who hadn’t seen it yet.

Working with high school students I have more than once heard complaints about how hard it is to be a freshman in today’s world and how it important it is to “fit in”. Well, just like it was many, many, many, many years ago when I was in high school – being a freshman can be the pits. Especially when you stand out. And this is the problem for Will Stronghold, played by Michael Angarano. The son of not one, but two super heroes (Commander Stronghold played by Kurt Russell and Josie Jetstream played by Kelly Preston – evidently the best in the business), everyone has an expectation that the young Stronghold will have superpowers beyond imagination. And not just his friends and teachers, but also there are high expectations forced on Will by his parents, who are already planning to announce the “family Stronghold”, the greatest super hero family ever. Unfortunately, Will shows up for his first day of school without “any” powers at all. Talk about standing out. Add to this, the first day of school, Will runs into the movie’s loner, dressed all gothic-like, tough guy who is out to get revenge on Will because Will’s father (the Commander) had put the tough guy’s father in prison. The tough guy is well played by Steven Strait as Warren Peace – the son of a super hero mother and an arch villain father – “Warren Peace” – get it :0) There are a lot of these types of puns in the film, but I won’t intentionally punish the film in my review for this since it doesn’t really impact the overall enjoyment factor.

The story, while I initially thought was just going to be a silly farce about super heroes and high school, turned out to have a real plot and some fairly good acting – though you do have to get past the super hero costumes and watching high school students flying, throwing fireballs, or shape-shifting (which has some funny aspects to itself if you pay close attention).

Scrape away the super hero facade and you will find a very entertaining and message filled story about “coming out and growing up” – or learning the difference between being a kid and approaching adulthood. Also you will find a story about friendship and the importance of maintaining these relationships. And that as we get older, the decisions we make have a greater impact -- something that comes as a major shock to most teens I have worked with. Also, as a child, you take things at face value, but as you age you find that you need to look beyond the outer appearance, you need to dig deeper and understand what is underneath the surface.

Besides the deeper messages in the movie, it was just plain funny and good time. Not because of the costumes or the story’s backdrop, but because of the interaction and lines between the actors. These interactions and conversations were even funnier because it was as if you took everyday teen events and put them in an absurd setting. Such as when Will’s parents first find out that he doesn’t have any super powers, the mother (Jetstream) says that there is nothing they can do – it’s not like they can drop Will into a vat of toxic waste (which is evidently how some teens have accidentally gotten their powers) – and Will’s father (Commander Stronghold) agrees – besides he wasn’t even sure where they could find a vat of toxic waste (indicating that the thought had crossed his mind). Almost like they were talking about Will not doing well in Geometry. But even these humorous moments are fraught with lessons that are worth grasping. When Will’s father and mother realize that their son may never have powers, they accept that they may never be the best super hero family there ever is, so instead, they are determined to be just the best family there ever was. And if Will can’t be a great super hero, then maybe he can be a great real estate agent (the Commander and Jetstream’s cover – which they are very good at and enjoy as much as their super hero work). A great lesson for all of us. Accept what you can’t change and move on. Don’t be burdened with old perceptions of what is necessary to make a happy life and future, but make the most of what you have and make something joyful out of that.

I thought the acting was as good as you could probably get considering the format of the film and storyline. And some of the best acting came not necessarily from the big names like Kurt Russell, but from the supporting cast with Steven Strait, Danielle Panabaker as Layla (complete with the rolled up buns of hair on either side of the head), Kelly Vitz as Magenta, Nicholas Braun as Zach, Dee Jay Daniels as Ethan, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Gwen.

One thing I really enjoyed was to watch a movie where there was a decent relationship between parents and their child and also among friends. It felt good to see something other than teens (all pretty much played by people in their late 20s) jumping into bed with everyone they meet, trying to decide which drug to take, or finding new ways to break the law and disobey their parents. I can tell you, after spending many years intimately aware of teen problems (and more than just youth group kids), yes there are a few that might fit nicely into the current crop of semi-drama teen TV series, but by and far the majority are more like the kids in Sky High. No, they can’t fly or freeze someone (though the stare that some of them give you could almost accomplish this), but they are more concerned with things like trying to get on a particular sports team, or trying to setup a date to the movies for the weekend, or passing their next exam – and in the worse case scenarios, dealing with family problems such as divorce.

Overall I thought the movie was a great one for both kids and adults. Not too goofy, yet not a lot of innuendo that kids will be asking “what did they mean”. It is pretty straight forward with a good sense of humor and reality (sans the super hero stuff).

Add to this good entertainment value, a Message in the Movie that was also pretty straight forward. Real friendship is more important, and more powerful, than any sort of benefit you get from being popular and the material rewards that go with it. This is an important message that I have gotten from the Gospels -- that it is not the things you possess or the things you do to impress others, but the love you share and receive in return. Shifting from a spiritual perspective to a scientific -- any psychiatrist, psychologist, or anyone working in the health care field will tell you -- it’s all about relationships. The other message is that real power (in contrast to comical super powers) sometimes comes from doing what is right vs. what feels good. Just as Saint Paul tells the Corinthians, when you are a child you do childish things, but when you grow up, as Will and his friends do in the movie, then you need to put your childish ways behind you. And as you leave childish things behind you need to take on the responsibility that goes with being a grown up.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Must Love Dogs (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:12:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Sometimes you don’t even need to be watching the screen to determine if a movie is any good or not. Sometimes you can just tell by the number and intensity of the “Ooohs” and “Aaahs” you hear around you. Using this as a meter, Must Love Dogs is going to be a big success. Sitting in the theater I had three teenage girls in the row ahead of me with two women and an elderly couple in the row behind. So I got an earful of Ooohs and Aaahs in stereo. But even without this accurate means of measurement I can tell you that the film will be a smash.

Must Love Dogs is a story about Sarah (Diane Lane) a preschool teacher whose husband, as Sarah says “just quit loving her”, has left her and re-married a younger woman. And no matter how much she wants to forget about men, her large Irish family all have perspective dates that they keep pushing on her. As anyone who comes from a large family, or is married into one, can tell you -- you are never along and EVERYONE has an opinion. This is the case with Sarah as her sister posts an internet personal ad for Sarah. That’s when it gets interesting.

Promoted as a Romantic Comedy, this movie lived up to the genre. But it was even funnier than most films in this category. This comes primarily from the one-liners and the interesting situations that Sarah finds herself in.

When I saw this movie I was on business travel and ended up at the theater by myself. However, when I get back home I will definitely take my wife to see it. This movie is great as a couples’ movie or for women (generally in groups). But I don’t think you will see too many men in the theater by themselves (well, of course unless they are doing a movie review :0).

John Cusack provides his normal off-the-wall character as John Anderson; which for this script, fits in perfectly. He and Diane Lane are well matched and you aren’t sitting there wondering how these two could ever get together, as I have with some romantic comedies. A great supporting cast only added to my enjoyment of the film. Elizabeth Perkins (Carol) plays the perfect interfering sister who won’t give up on her Sarah. Christopher Plummer, who plays Sarah’s widowed father, Bill, adds a distinguished flavor to the story. At 70+ years, and having already experienced the “love of his life”, he gives everyone out there hope as he still ventures out into the dating world. And to complement Plummer’s character, Stockard Channing (Dolly) provides an excellent performance and the women’s view to accompany Plummer’s.

What I really liked about the movie was that regardless of all the disappoints, in both Diane and John’s lives, they still had hope in love (of course they had to be pushed initially). But his is kind of like life and also our relationship with God. Without love life really doesn’t have much meaning. The importance of love in our lives has been evident since the beginning of mankind. There are probably more quotes about love than anything else. Some of the earliest quotes capture this theme. Even as far back as Aristotle “Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies.”

So I am not surprised that Must Love Dogs will be a big hit. Combine comedy, the continuing search for love, and some good acting to bring this story to light; and you have a recipe for success.

At one point, during a Confirmation party for his grandson, Christopher Plummer’s character quotes a poem by William Butler Yeats, called Brown Penny. I don’t normally quote poems in my review, but I thought this one captured the essence of the film’s theme so eloquently.

I whispered, 'I am too young,'
And then, 'I am old enough';
Wherefore I threw a penny
To find out if I might love.
'Go and love, go and love, young man,
If the lady be young and fair.'
Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
I am looped in the loops of her hair.

O love is the crooked thing,
There is nobody wise enough
To find out all that is in it,
For he would be thinking of love
Till the stars had run away
And the shadows eaten the moon.
Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
One cannot begin it too soon.

This summarizes the storyline and the Message in the Movie. A penny represents the chance that we all take in life. Like tossing a penny in the air we are uncertain if it is the right time or that we may be too young (or too old) for love. But as the movie shows us, love does not care about your age or where you are in life. And as the film proves, if you find love, don’t give up and instead get lost in it (looped). But don’t think about it too much or you may lose sight of why you are in love – stay lost in the dream (till the stars run away). As with Sarah and John, take a risk -- throw your penny out there and see what you get in return. Have fun with this movie, and take someone you love to it.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Wedding Crashers (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:22:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film

Ok, now I understand why Wedding Crashers came out on July 15th, but wasn’t the number 1 movie until the weekend of July 30th. Critics didn’t care for the movie, but it appealed to the masses and word-of-mouth made the movie a hit.

I had not planned on going to see this movie, but a lot of different people told me I just had to see it. I had heard that it was pretty raunchy and really thought that maybe it was one of those movies where they went for shock value because they couldn’t produce a quality film.

Well, there was a lot of profanity, some minor nudity, and there was definitely sexually oriented scenes (sometimes fairly extreme), but there wasn’t anything that a mature adult couldn’t deal with. I would not recommend for a younger teen.

A couple of long time buddies have spent years perfecting the skill of crashing weddings to enjoy some really great food, dance, party with happy, and oh yeah, to score with girls who are on the emotional high generated from the wedding ceremony (and alcohol). We learn that this talent was passed down to them, like a legacy, and they look forward to the “wedding season” all year long. They are good at what they do, nothing held back – and not just crashing weddings, but becoming the life of the party – and we are led to believe, making the wedding even that much better.

But something goes wrong. They have literally hundreds of rules for how to crash a wedding. But the one situation not covered is – what happens when a “Crasher” falls in love with someone at the wedding. This is when the story really gets interesting.

You already know that the film is going to be funny when you find out that Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn are the leads. But I must admit that it was much funnier than I had expected. I am use to Wilson's style of humor from some of his films with Jackie Chan, but when complimented with Vaughn’s straight forward, sometimes rough or rude, comedic style, the combination heightens is well worth the investment.

Rachel McAdams is ideally suited as the story’s love objective and a beautiful addition to the cast. Her portrayal as the “real” person provides an excellent counter to Wilson's façade. And this sets up a conflict that is crucial to the story.

Though this was one of the funniest movies I have seen this year, what I got out of the movie was a lot more than silliness (which is what I expected when the movie started). There were a couple Message in the Movie moments here. What struck me first was the relationship between Wilson and Vaughn. Vaughn had made a commitment to Wilson when they were kids and he has kept that pledge for 16 years. They looked forward to their times as “Crashers”. But they never would have made it as Crashers if they weren’t the best of friends. This is demonstrated as the film goes on and Vaughn continues to suffer one situation after another. Yet he still sticks with and supports Wilson.

Then there is the transformation of John after meeting Claire. After years of transient relationships, John (Wilson) finally is struck with the love bug – and will go through literally anything to obtain the “love of his life”.

This movie is not for those who are easily offended, but if you can wade through some of the more offensive moments (which are, in the case of this movie, necessary to the film’s story), then this is a must see.

Strangely enough, even though this film is predicated upon the concept that a couple of “Crashers” are out to score multiple “one-night stands”, the movie has a lot to say about monogamous relationships and the love between two people. What it says to us is that playing the field provides momentary thrills, but a deep relationship is the real avenue to joy and happiness. Again, as I have said in many past reviews, the key to this is true love. And as I have pointed out in the Gospels repetitively, God is Love and Love is God. Remember the first two commandments, Love God and then Love each other.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film

Bad News Bears (2005)

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:00:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

I recently wrote a review where I had nothing but kudos for the remake of a classic, The Longest Yard. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about the Bad News Bears. Maybe if I had never seen the original 1976 version of the Bad News Bears I would have enjoyed this current release a bit more. But that is not the case.

About the only similarity between the original 1976 and the 2005 versions is the overall plot. A self acclaimed drunk and loser, whose claim to fame is that he once stepped onto a major league field, is hired to coach a team of misfits and the athletically challenged. The story follows the coach, as much a misfit as the kids he is coaching, and the team he grows to love as they rise from the cellar to become a competitor. But this is where the similarity ends. The main focus of the movie is not about the team’s turn around, as much as it is about the many relationships and the evolution of these relationships during this one Little League season.

Well, at least that is what you get out of the 1976 version. And this is the big difference between the two. In the 1976 version a lot of time is spent on character development and the relationship of the characters. How the events of the baseball season impact these relationships and the characters themselves. Walter Matthau as Coach Morris Buttermaker and his estranged daughter Amanda Whurlitzer (played by Tatum O’Neal) gave excellent performances and you really got to know and feel for these characters. The Director, Michael Ritchie, focused on these characters and their relationship, giving you a glimpse as to why Buttermaker was who he was and how hard it was for he and his daughter to reconnect. And when they do, you feel like you were there for the painful and loving effort that it required.

While Billy Bob Thornton was able to convince you that Buttermaker was a drunken, go nowhere, has-been baseball player, there was little depth to the character. And I was totally thrown off, even though I knew it was coming, when he all of sudden becomes “the coach”. It was like one minute he is this unrecoverable scumbag and then the next he is the experienced coach, driven to whip his team into shape. Why did he make this change? There was no buildup—he just changes? Not very convincing and not very entertaining. And the relationship between Buttermaker and his alienated daughter, while highlighted as it was in the earlier release, it was not emphasized in this remake. In the current release, if that part of the film had been left on the editing floor, it probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference to this newest version. By comparison this was essential to the earlier version and is what really made the earlier version a classic. This difference is carried through with all the rest of the characters. Other than an off-handed mention about his father, we have no idea why the character Kelly Leak is such a rebel. And the relationship between Kelly and Amanda is almost inconsequential in this newest release—where it was a critical component of the original movie.

And what about Timmy Lupis, Tanner Boyle, and the rest of the team? In the original you got to know these characters and why, finally, when they came together it was such a wondrous thing. It seems like the only purpose in the current version for the rest of the team is to provide an outlet for obscenities, flipping off each other, and someone for Buttermaker to cuss at. The earlier release, when it first came out, was considered a bit edgy (a young girl like Amanda talking about sexual things, kids being exposed to the excesses of the original drunken Buttermaker). But this new release isn’t edgy—it’s just a flourish of profanity, racism, and sexual innuendo; from beginning to end; in a hope that if you provide enough shock value, some people will find it funny. I don't mind if a film requires these components to provide atmosphere or emphasis to the storyline, but when the purpose is just to fill in (most of the film) or used as for shock value (and even then not very successfully), then I am artistically offended.

And it was funny at times. There were some scenes that made you laugh and some interactions that made you think. But these were few and far between. I did like Sammi Kane Kraft, who plays Buttermaker’s daughter (Amanda) in the 2005 version. Though it probably was not a stretch for her to play the role as she is a Little League pitcher in real life. I would like to see her in a different role where she is given the opportunity to demonstrate her acting abilities. Because the Bad News Bears was not one of these.

Even though the film has been dissected to remove the factors that made the original such a success, the overall Message in the Movie remains. We see this Message in Buttermaker’s salvation as he develops an affinity for the Bad News Bear players (though, like I said earlier, this transformation is sudden and without any real substance). Also, though lightly touched on, is the reconciliation with his daughter. A similarity to the returning prodigal son story, but in reverse. The father, who has been away from the family returns, and after some trepidation on the daughter’s part, accepted back – even after everything he has done wrong. We are shown how the change in the father impacts the daughter. The same applies in our own lives. How we interact with others can make a major difference in their lives and the reverse is true. Our relationships have a profound impact on how we see the world and others around us. Lastly, we see fellowship exemplified as individuals come together to form a team, especially in the relationship between Tanner and Lupis (though this is again lightly touched on in the 2005 release).

With all the great movies out this Summer, I would put this one on the backburner until it comes out on DVD and you have seen everything else you want to see. Better yet, go rent the 1976 version and really enjoy the film as it was meant to be.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:23:00 +0000

—Overview
--Back to Book Index

Book Review: When someone generally says they are a Christian, most people will automatically (right or wrong) envision a Right Wing supporter of President Bush. Well, Anne Lamott (author of the best seller “Traveling Mercies”) proves that not all Christians fall into this category. First off, you need to picture a 50 year old white woman with dreadlocks who is an ex-drug addict raising a 15 year old son on her own and is a self proclaimed Right Wing Christian. And, by the way, she really has problems with the Bush Administration. Ok, now you are beginning to get an insight into the author of the book “Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith”.

When asked if I am a Liberal or Conservative I just shrug my shoulders and say “depends”. It depends on the issue. Sometimes I can be pretty conservative, and on other issues I might be extremely liberal. Sometimes I may be middle of the road. I guess I just don’t fit into a nice neat box. So there are many things I could relate to in Anne’s book, but then there are some things that she comes up with that I found a little extreme, even me.

But all-in-all, I feel like Anne Lamott provided a lot of insight into our daily life, especially for those of us in the second half of this (sometimes) wonderful and glorious life. Yet even those who still think their physical body is immortal can find nuggets of wisdom that might help them find their way the complex maze of what we call life.

Life is tough. For anyone who has had any experience in life knows that this is one of life’s truer statements. Anne Lamott has had a tough life and has taken her hard earned wisdom and put it down on paper. Again, her perspective takes on a highly liberal viewpoint on many issues, but even in this she speaks what many of us (both liberals and conservatives) have thought ourselves, just not put into words. For those that believe there is only way to look at a subject, they might not “get” Anne’s book. But for the majority who look at the many angles of an issue, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, this book holds a lot for them to think about. It is a book about faith in everyday life and faith that knows no bounds. Or for that matter, structure. That’s why those of you who have never felt comfortable in a traditional church will soak up this book.

To really understand where Anne comes from and how she interprets daily life, it is best to highlight some of her observations that I found of interest:

Anne tells the story of trying to start up a Sunday school at her church, though at the time she did not particularly like having more than two children around at any time and she has self proclaimed mediocre self-esteem. As she put it, “I grow anxious on my way to the dump with a car full of garbage, convinced that my garbage and I will be rejected, either because I am throwing out perfectly good stuff, or because it is so disgusting that the people who run the dump wouldn’t want it.”

So why start a Sunday school. She tells a Hasidic story [Anne leverages all people to get to her point] of a rabbi who when asked why God puts Scripture on their hearts rather than in their hearts. The rabbi answered “Only God can put Scripture inside. But reading sacred text can put it on your hearts, and then when your hearts break, the holy words will fall inside.”

The Iraqi war started during the writing of Anne’s book and greatly influenced much of the book’s content. In one chapter she relates of how the war made her feel the same as when her mother had Alzheimers and her entire family felt totally helpless. You didn’t know quite what to do as the old rules just no longer applied. She remembers a decal she saw that helped her through her mother’s debilitating disease and also through the beginning weeks of the Iraqi war. It had a picture of a gorilla on it and a caption that said “The law of the American jungle: Remain calm, share the bananas.” Her family tried to make one another laugh and stay calm, and shared their bananas. This is what she says we all need to do every day – share the bananas because we are all in this together and faith is about relying on each other and God.

Anne pulls on wisdom she has garnered from many different wise people (Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, whoever). There are a number of things that Anne says that really stuck with me. One was something she learned from reading the memoir by a Hindu writer; which she says is basically the same thing she was told by a close Priest friend of hers, “…when you pray, you are not starting the conversation from scratch, just remembering to plug back into a conversation that’s always in progress.” I now find my self sitting down and rather than beginning with a lot of re-introductions (after all, God probably knows me well enough from all my past failures), I just start right off like I had stepped out of the room to get a soda and was returning to an on-going conversation. Sometimes, I just sit and say “I’m back God”.

The book is really humorous, but I do caution – this is not your normal “Christian life insight” book, and if you consider yourself more on the conservative side and not really interested in getting into the mind of someone a bit different, you won’t enjoy this reading. One example I can give you is that Anne feels that there are times when only profanity is the proper response and she is not bashful about using it from time-to-time to express her feelings. Overall, though most Readers will probably not agree with all Anne’s observations, I believe that there is something for everyone in this book. Whether the parent of a teenager, an ex-hippy, recovering addict, single parent, or Sunday school teacher and devout Christian, you will recognize something in this book that you can relate with and will find yourself going “hmmm”.

—Overview
--Back to Book Index

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 04:59:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

I went to this movie not sure exactly what to expect. In watching the trailers I had the impression that it was your standard Boy meets Girl, Girl marries Boy, and then Boy & Girl try to kill each other with high-tech weaponry. You know, run of the mill Hollywood stuff. I recently reviewed another movie, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and stated that “If your movie taste lean towards the thrill of watching things getting blown up, or fists flying in every direction… this is probably not the movie for you.” Well, now’s your time. This movie has more action than three WWII movies put together. Once you get past the opening scenes, there is very little down time. I can’t remember when I have seen more things blown up, people shot, or out-and-out destruction in a single two hour period. But in contrast, at the same time, it was a strangely funny -- very funny film. Add to this an odd love story and you have pretty much captured the premise of the movie and why it will be a big hit.

From the beginning of the story, the movie seized my attention as Brad Pitt (John Smith) and Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith) are meeting with a marriage counselor, evidently in the midst of incompatibility problems after 5 (or 6) years of marriage. As the movie begins to unfold we are shown how the couple met in a dangerous life threatening situation, that led to a wild sexual episode (though no nudity exposed on screen), followed by a lively short romantic liaison, and a quick marriage. However, the follow-on suburban married life, distinctly different from the world in which they met, creates a lackluster relationship between the two and the obvious reasons for their marital problems. Then all this suddenly and surprising changes! Which gives us our movie plot.

From the very first set of interviews with the marriage counselor you are made aware that there are secrets between the couple. And as anyone who has been in a long-term relationship can tell you, the key ingredient required for a successful and strong relationship is open communication and trust. But neither could possibly envision the depth of secrets that the other held. And once we get a glimpse of the Smiths at work as assassins, we are amazed at the cold matter-of-fact nature in which they complete their assignments. It is hard to imagine these two in a loving relationship of any kind.

If nothing changes, it is apparent that they will struggle on in a failing relationship and eventually divorcing. But then the unthinkable happens. Unbeknown to each other, they find themselves both assigned to the same “target”. One of them works for the Firm while the other for the Agency. Competitors in the assassination business, the competitor’s true nature never really revealed, though we are subtly led to believe that the “targets” are generally “bad” guys. As both the Smiths get in the way of each other’s assignment, and they fail to eliminate the “target”, they are not aware who the person is that foiled their assassination attempt – just that there is a witness to the attempt. This leads to an evidently rare decree common to both competitors. Any witnesses must be eliminated within 48 hours, or you yourself then become the target. So as each Smith runs down the identity of their witness and uncover the truth, the suspicion that they have been duped, used as a cover over the past 5 (or 6) years, begins to surface. After this shock, a miscommunication and accident, followed by another un-intended incident, the battle begins -- and two of the best in the business (John and Jane Smith) are pitted (no pun intended) against each other. Admittedly, an option a bit more extreme than divorce.

There is a lot of twist and turns from this point forward and I kept expecting it to turn out to be a “dark comedy” along the lines of 1989 movie The War of the Roses with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner. I won’t give too much away, but as the movie draws to a close I was reminded of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but I won’t divulge the final scenes.

I had heard a lot about this movie prior to going to see it and wasn’t sure if it was the type of movie I would enjoy. I am ok with some shoot’em-up in flicks, but not really into every scene filled to the brim with something blowing up or someone dying, and also not a big advocate of dark comedies (too much of a contradiction for me). So you can imagine I was a bit hesitant at first. However, I lucked out once again and thoroughly enjoyed the film. Though it was never-ending shoot’em-up, the reaction of the main characters (Mr. & Mrs. Smith) was so bizarre that you couldn’t help but laugh. Most action films have characters who are so tense you can feel your own muscles tightening or they are so remote from the action (Arnold) that they are like a stone that you feel no emotions whatsoever for the character. But in the case of Mr. & Mrs. Smith the characters are neither tense nor stone-faced.

Much of the dialogue is not bracketed in fear or distress, even though massive death and mayhem is happening all around the characters, but instead is communicated in friendly banter between the two main characters. And this total contrast between how we the Viewers imagine we would feel in a similar situation and how the movie’s characters react to each other, and the destruction occurring around them, is what makes the movie work. There are some really funny scenes in the movie based upon this concept.

At first you might find it hard to identify or even care about these characters – I mean, after all, they are hired assassins. And even more so as they probably end up killing literally hundreds of people during the film. But, what tends to be overlooked is that the “targets” that they assassinate appear to be “bad” guys (though I am not advocating that it is ok to kill someone just because you think they are bad – I would have a lot less friends if that was the case :-). And the other folks that they end up killing are mostly other agents from one or other of their employers who are trying to kill them in the first place. So, you could easily say that no “innocents” are harmed in this film. In fact, there is one scene where Brad realizes he has a bomb in his clothes and throws them into a mailbox telling all the bystanders on the street “to get back” so they will not be harmed. Also, though the movie has a “PG-13” rating for violence, intense action, sexual content and brief strong language – it is not a blood and guts type of violence. I sometimes have a problem with this approach as it waters down the reality of violence and minimizes death. But in this case, it is done in such a cartoonish way that it really can’t be taken seriously. Don’t misunderstand, there are many scenes where people are being shot or blown up, but it is relatively bloodless and the accompanying dialogue and actions by the two main characters (Brad and Angelina) make it just seem so surreal that it is funny.

To really talk about some of the deeper meaning of this movie it really requires getting into the twist and turns of the film and how it is all resolved. So, I would suggest you first watch the movie and then come back to read the remaining section – or – go ahead if you do not mind knowing what is going to happen and read the below. It may give you some insight as you watch the film after reading the review.

“SPOILER” “SPOILER” “SPOILER” “SPOILER” “SPOILER”

I found it interesting that, after trying to eliminate each other, both Brad and Angelina find that they are incapable of really killing each other. That through their vicious attacks on each other; they re-discovered what it was that had attracted them to each other in the first place -- the passion and excitement, that was lost in their attempts to fit into the lie of living a suburban life. Basically they find that even though they have no emotions regarding the horrendous job they perform, they find themselves, probably for the first time in their lives, caring for another individual – and worse yet (at least from their professional perspective), they are really in love. The matter-of-fact way they deal with this reality is what makes the movie fun and interesting.

Consider the experience of these two. They are the best at what they do – killing people. Imagine what they would have to have gone through to obtain this distinction. They would have to be some of the coldest hearted individuals on the face of the earth. So how could these, heartless killers, fall in love. To the point where they would put their lives at risk for each other. I believe they found something that they could finally put on a pedestal higher than themselves. Something that generated more excitement and created more exhilaration than the high they received from their dangerous lifestyle. They found each other and a love that exceeded friendship or common brotherly love.

In Greek they have several different words for Love. One is Philia or Phileo; which is love between friends, or what you might call brotherly love. Another is Eros; which is used to indicate a sexual type of love. The last is Agape. Agape can be defined as selfless or sacrificial love. This is the kind of love that I believe Mr. and Mrs. Smith found. A love which is rarely found, but once found, must be held at all cost.

In the bible the word love is used interchangeably, however, when Jesus talks about sinners and his love for them – He uses Agape. And I imagine he would probably have used the same word when talking about Mr. & Mrs. Smith. For even they, after all is said and done, are not outside of God’s mercy and Grace.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:41:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

How do you know when you might be making a mistake? One way is when the lights begin to fade and you look around a packed theater and realize that there are only three other guys in the entire theater. A closer inspection also reveals that more than half of the females filling the theater are under the age of 18. For those that don’t take hints very well, these are good clues that you are about to watch a chick-flick. As it turns out, my wife and teenage daughter had read the book Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, by Ann Brashares, and couldn’t stop talking about how great it was. So, as a family we ended up sitting in a theater on Friday night waiting for the movie adaptation of the book to begin. But, to my surprise, and delight, it turns out that I had not made a mistake.

If your movie taste lend towards the thrill of watching things getting blown up, or fists flying in every direction, or even an underdog sports team overcoming enormous odds, this is probably not the movie for you. But I also wouldn’t write this movie off as just another chick-flick and recommend it to most everyone. Yes, it is a coming-of-age, feel good movie; and while the movie will definitely appeal to most girls in high school and younger, along with many women who will reminisce about their past friendships; I think it will also appeal to a lot of guys. The movie is well directed, the acting is convincing, and the storyline is just captivating enough to attract more than just teenage girls.

From the beginning of the film, a major theme came through loud and clear – Sisterhood, or Fellowship. This is exemplified in the love of the characters for one another and how they sustain their faith in the face of turbulent experiences. A faith bolstered by a pair of pants that magically appear in a thrift shop. The plot is based upon the story of four girls that make up the Sisterhood: Bridget, Carmen, Lena, and Tibby. They have known each other since they were babies and have been there for each other through every trial and tribulation including divorce and death of a parent. On the eve of separating for the first time, each going their own way for the Summer, they are found by a pair of supernatural jeans – that magically fits all four of them perfectly (though they are all different sizes and shapes). Apprehensive about being separated for the first time, they decide to share the pants, mailing them to each other after one week of ownership. The idea being that even though they are apart, the pants will “travel” between them as a reminder of their bond and fellowship.

The shy Lena (Alexis Bledel of Gilmore Girls fame) takes off for Greece to spend time with her grandparents. The level-headed one of the group, she finds that a life of comfortable routine and an uneventful existence is not necessarily a recipe for happiness. Bridget (played by Blake Lively, a relative new-comer) is off to soccer camp in Mexico leaving her emotionally detached father behind. The wild one, she grasps for the love she can’t find at home, but must also deal with the fear of repeating her mother’s past mistakes. Carmen (America Ferrera who played Ana Garcia in Real Women have Curves) travels out of state to visit her estranged father only to run into a situation that drives a wedge farther between her and her dad. She must deal with years of pent up anger and her own feelings about her father. Tibby (Amber Tamblyn the star of Joan of Arcadia – which I am still angry about being cancelled) stays behind to work on a documentary about the pointlessness of life; which she calls a "suckumentary". As the rebel of the group, and comes across as removed from the ordinariness of the world, Tibby is confronted with the fact that real life is not about our individual actions, but is about the relationships that connect us all together. Not part of the Sisterhood, but connected nonetheless is Bailey, a pre-teen who befriends Tibby. Jenna Boyd, who portrays Bailey, at 12 years of age has already compiled a fairly extensive list of past performances including The Missing, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, and The Hunted, along with a number of TV appearances (Six Feet Under, CSI, and Just Shoot Me!). Jenna is an excellent young actress and some of the scenes between her and Amber Tamblyn are just plain heart-wrenching, with most of the audience in tears, but simultaneously an inspiration to the viewer. Jenna’s character, and the on-screen relationship between her and Amber’s character, provide a striking contrast to the sucumentary and the assertion that life is pointlessness.

I really enjoyed this movie, even though at times it felt a little claustrophobic in the midst of the estrogen-ridden room. Regardless, the movie lived up to its hype as did all the young actresses. Bringing together some of the best young actresses of our times reminded me a little of when other films brought together the best young talent of their times, such as the 1988 film Young Guns with Emilio Estevez (Mighty Ducks series), Kiefer Sutherland (star of the TV series 24), Lou Diamond Phillips (with recent appearances on Jack & Bobby and Numbers), and Charlie Sheen (star of TV’s Two and Half Men).

As the characters come of age and discover much about themselves, and each other, they are transformed; they’re journey of spiritual grow and into maturity is stylishly captured on film. I have to admit I am somewhat the sentimental type, enjoying a good romantic comedy (e.g. Wimbleton), but gagging at The Bridges of Madison County. So one might say my appreciation for the film could be suspect, but I think that I am objective enough to say most men would find this film enjoyable. It also wouldn’t hurt your relationship to provide an empathetic shoulder to lean against during the more heartrending scenes.

This spiritual growth and maturity is a natural part of our lives. In Corinthians it says “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man [woman], I put childish ways behind me. . . And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

This love theme is prevalent throughout the movie in the form of their sisterhood. The characters are linked in a fellowship that bonds them through the good and bad times of their lives. Though they need to exist in the world as individuals, they also love each other and are bound to each other in a way only those who have experienced this closeness can understand.

If you read the book and enjoyed it, then you should enjoy the movie as my wife tells me the movie is true to the book. And even if you haven’t read the book, I think you will still enjoy the movie. You will come away with a sense of well being. Of having shared in the character’s intimate experiences. And beyond all else, feeling as if you too are part of something bigger than yourself, as Bailey and Tibby discover when lying on a blanket looking up at the stars. . . there must be something more, something greater than just this life. And they are so right! As Jesus says Himself, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned…’

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Fever Pitch

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Sat, 14 May 2005 20:32:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

My wife and I had a “date afternoon” and decided to catch Fever Pitch. It was one of the better decisions we have made recently. Not just because we were the only people in the entire movie theater, and it was like having a giant screen TV in our living room, but because it was a really good movie for a couple to see together. Unfortunately, if you read many of the “Movie Critics” comments on this film you would probably never go see it. The general opinion from many of these “Critics” is that the movie is just a remake of older, and better, romantic comedies (particularly the 1997 Colin Firth film about the conflict a British schoolteacher faces when having to choose between his dearly loved Arsenals [soccer team] and his girlfriend. However, canvass most “Movie Goers” and you will hear a very different story. They love it. And their not all Red Sox fans either. The general consensus I have heard is that this is a fun movie and a great film to take your date, though it might spark some interesting conversations about male and female relationships and priorities. And I can’t agree more.

Though Critics review movies for a living, I have found that when it comes, at least to romantic comedies, that my wife is a better judge of what is a good date movie versus most Critics. She loved it. And so did I.

The movie opens with a quick description of your standard Red Sox fan; which is to say a crazed maniac who, as Jimmy Fallon’s character (Ben Wrightman) is quoted later in the movie as saying, prioritizes life as
1) the Red Sox;
2) sex; and
3) breathing.

Ben is a school teacher who meets the incomparable Drew Barrymore’s character (Lindsey Meeks), a high powered business woman, on a school field trip to her office. Consistent with Fallon’s sports fanatic character, his competitiveness takes over when his students insinuate that Barrymore is out of his league. At first Lindsey turns Ben down. Her normal dates are high powered businessmen, as one of her friend’s points, sort of like dating herself, and is probably why she hasn’t found someone she could have a lasting relationship with. Taking a chance, Lindsey and Ben go out.

The movie continues as Ben, the consummate fan, transforms reminiscent of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as baseball’s Opening Day approaches. As Lindsey says later, she knows and loves Mr. Winter, it is Mr. Summer (corresponding to the baseball season) that she can’t deal with. I believe anyone, whose other half has any sort of interest in sports, can probably relate at some level to this situation. The conflict escalates and while Lindsey believes she can deal with Ben’s obsession, it eventually becomes a barrier in their relationship. One factor that makes this film standout from your run-of-the-mill romantic comedies is that it doesn’t as much explore male-female differences, a common conflict in romantic comedies, as it highlights the differences between die-hard fans and, well, everyone else.

How the conflict resolves itself is what makes this movie really worth seeing and provides the true message that, anyone looking close enough, will come away with. Yes, the movie is about fan obsession, but this is just an analogy for passion; which we all have in one form or another. True, this passion may not be sports related, but may instead be a passion for money and material possessions, power over others, or all too common today, an obsession (addiction) with pornography. Yet, while Ben is obsessed with the Red Sox, and Lindsey is obsessed with her work, both learn that where the real passion exists...is in love and sacrifice.

It is only after Ben and Lindsey grasp the extent of their love for one another and are willing to sacrifice what they thought was the focus of their lives for this love, are they able to truly realize the full extent of their passion. That the passion they had was only a placeholder for true passion, love. And this could only be achieved through sacrifice. This truth parallels our own lives. In the midst of all our daily trials and tribulations, our ability to not only survive, but to flourish, comes down to where we focus our passion. We spend our entire lives searching…searching for something to be passionate about that. An object that will respond in kind and return the love and passion we expend. Yet, so often we overlook what is right in front of us. Let me help you here with this. Few people would disagree with the statement that sports fans are some of the most passionate people on the planet. If you watch any college or professional sports event you will assuredly see these same passionate sports fans holding up a variety of signs. And I bet if I asked you what sign is displayed at these events more than any other, you would probably be able to tell me. John 3:16. But can you tell me what this verse is: “For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Talk about true love and sacrifice! And what makes it even more amazing is that it is available to every single one of us regardless of our past or where we are in our life’s journey.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

Star Wars, Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Wed, 25 May 2005 20:34:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

First off, let me begin by saying that I truly and unabashedly just plain loved this film. It tied the entire series of six movies together for me and brought out several messages that I think are important for all of us in the here-and-now and in a galaxy far-far away.

I have to start by admitting that I am old enough to have attended the first Star Wars movie, in my 20’s, when it first came out in May of 1977. Then it was just called “Star Wars” (before being re-titled to “Star Wars: New Hope” in 1981). I had read George Lucas’ book even before the movie came out and could hardly wait for the movie’s release. Though I tried not to let myself get too excited, as I had not really expected the movie to live up to the book’s storyline, I was pleasantly surprised as I sat glued to the screen from the opening shots by the Imperial Star Destroyer to the final scene where Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are awarded metals by Princess Leia and General Dodonna for destroying the Death Star. I have been hooked ever since.

The range and depth of characters in all three of the original trilogy movies made these more than just your run-of-the-mill 1970’s sci-fi flicks about futuristic technology. And when the second trilogy was announced I was ecstatic. Admittedly, Episode I was not everything I had hoped for, but then again, Lucas probably had one of the toughest jobs in the industry. He not only had to produce a fourth movie based upon a subject already exposed in three previous movies, but he had to provide all the functions necessary for a good story (build-up, climax, suspense) when everyone already knew what was going to happen in the end.

Regardless, I felt that while Episode I and II had not lived up to my expectations, I have to disagree with most Critics who complain that in the three Episodes Lucas did not develop his characters and instead just focused on the special effects.

I believe that Lucas has accomplished, with the three Episodes, exactly what was needed to flush out the entire series. It is true that in the original trilogy we learned to love (or hate in some cases) the many characters, but in the end we were left to only guess at how the situation came to be in the first place. How did Darth Sidious, Lord of the Sith, become the Emperor? Why was the bounty hunter Boba Fett so intent on hunting down Luke’s friend Han Solo? What would have driven Darth Vader to the Darkside? What was the relationship between Obi-Wan Kenobi, Darth Vader, and Luke (not to mention Yoda)? These are all left unanswered at the end of the original trilogy, yet Lucas comes back to answer all these questions, and more, in the new trilogy (Episodes I – III).

And to answer the question about character development, through intense painful scenes we see how Anakin in Episode I is faced with the loss of the only person he had truly loved until then, his mother, and how this carries over into Episode III as a driving factor in his transition to the Darkside. We see that it isn’t just an instant conversion from Jedi to Sith. There are many stresses in his life; which are brought to light in great detail throughout all three of the Episodes.

We are shown the relationships between all the main characters and are led to understand how the interactions between them mold the various characters’ personalities and subsequent actions. What more could you ask for in a series of movies! And speaking of interactions between characters. The biggest complaint I have heard is that the dialogue was stiff, especially between Anakin and Padmé. Well, give me a break, they are teenagers. And though we all know how verbally adept Romeo and Juliet were; it would not have been believable for our Star Wars’ teenage lovers to drone on about the depth of their love and passion. For one thing, it would have been totally out of character for Anakin who through the first two Episodes was a boy/man of action, not of words.

SPOILER WARNING

Rather than dialogue, it was much more in Anakin’s character to see his reaction when Padmé tells him that she is pregnant. One of my colleagues saw the movie at 12:01 the night it opened in a theater full of college students. He told me that when Padmé broke the “exciting” news, the audience burst into laughter after seeing Anakin’s expression. My friend heard several of the people around him making comments like “Oh geez, he’s probably thinking now – I have to get a real job!” The typical reaction you might get from a teenage or young adult male who finds themselves in the same position. But definitely not a lot of “dialogue”.

END OF SPOILER

So beyond the quality of the film; which is up for individual interpretation, what else might we get out of the movie? Back to the old question of what is the Message in the Movie. In this case, to get the full set of Messages, you need to look across the entire spectrum of the six films. Assuredly, for anyone who has seen Return of the Jedi there is the concept of redemption. After everything that Darth Vader has done in his life he finally comes to the realization of what is truly important. Love, duty, truth. In this moment Vader disappears and Anakin returns momentarily before his death (i.e. Return of the Jedi). Redemption is confirmed when Anakin is revealed to Luke from the beyond along side Yoda and Obi-Wan, Anakin in his pre-Vader state (an important symbolism here). Joining his mentors and friends, he is finally forgiven and at peace. And after seeing his dastardly deeds in Episode III, you must truly believe that no matter what I, or you, have done, there is always the hope of forgiveness and love out there waiting for us.

Beyond the redemption factor (though not something to lightly be glanced over), there were other major Messages to be found. But to focus on just Episode III I wanted to bring up something that struck me personally and is probably one of the reasons I really got into Episode III. It’s a little thing called stress. I asked earlier how could someone like Anakin transform into Darth Vader. There were many factors that contributed to this, but one is definitely the stress applied to him by everyone around him. Friend and foe alike. Anakin felt trapped in a world not of his making. The difference between him and many of us is how he responded. He felt he had no outlet except for the one offered by the Darkside. A quickly made decision, and unfortunate mistake for everyone concerned, especially himself. This struck a chord with me as it related to one of my favorite verses from Matthew 11:28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” Remember, there is another avenue then the Darkside. We just need to turn 180 degrees and look for the Light! “Come to me…I will give you rest.”

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

A Lot Like Love

papabear@san.rr.com (Peter (PapaBear) Cruikshank) — Sun, 29 May 2005 20:19:00 +0000

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

For a predictable, standard run-of-the-mill Harry Meets Sally storyline, this flick was pretty good. The movie opens with a promiscuous Emily (Amanda Peet) making a move on Oliver (Ashton Kutcher); which should have given me an indication of the fast-paced activity that was to follow.

To keep the movie going, Oliver pursues Emily through New York City to establish a connection between them. From this point on the movie progresses with the characters being presented to us again, in new stages of their lives, after various intervals of time. This periodic separation and reconnecting not only helped the flow of the movie, but I think is also indicative of the rapid and sometimes drastic changes that people (particularly younger adults) go through in their lives. It also brought out the main theme of the movie which was that love isn't always obvious, especially to those who are in the midst of it. Both main characters seemed to spend much of their time denying their feelings for each other, or at a minimum, found the most inopportune times to express them. The movie also does a good job of reflecting how our lives, in today's world, can throw many obstacles into the path of what is really important -- relationships.

The movie had several humorous spots that kept you laughing and after each break in time I found myself eagerly waiting to see how the main characters lives had changed. How was Oliver doing in achieving his "plan"? Was Emily still chasing after musicians? This added a little suspense that helped separate this movie from similar Harry Meets Sally genre.

Overall I enjoyed the film. After all, at a minimum, who could not be mesmerized by Amanda Peets' eyes? I particularly liked the desert scene as I thought the nudity was handled well and I believe this scene really contributed to our understanding of the characters and their continuing dilemma.

I was somewhat disappointed by the director's predictability. There were few scenes that I did not know how they would end within a few moments of their beginnings. I realize that the film was not designed to be a major thought provoker, yet I had hoped for a bit more originality in how the scenes played out. This is generally irritating to my daughter as I sit there in the dark of the theater, munching on popcorn, and proceed to tell her how each scene will end.

Though I was annoyed with the predictability of the plot, I did enjoy the film. Kutcher was acceptable and Peet exceeded my expectations, bringing better acting that I would expect in a threadbare plot. The reality of life and its changing nature over time, along with the miscued love story, was worth the price of admission and would make a good date night flick. But don't look for any deep message in the movie. It is pretty straight forward and requires little intellect to stay up with the plot.

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections