I'm going to an advance industry screening of Prince Caspian tonight.
I got the hookups.

The Red Balloon just got released on DVD.



I remember watching this movie as a kid...in school. They put up a screen, and a film projector and we watched it... a lot. When it was raining at recess, "Red Balloon". When it was the end of the semester or a friday afternoon with no curriculum, "Red Balloon". When the teachers needed a break, "Red balloon". When Field Day was over, and they needed to kill 30 minutes, "Red balloon".

Oh the agony. Is there anyone out there who knows why we had to watch this thing? Are there any schoolteachers out there who taught during the 70's and 80's? Why did you make us watch this?

I always figured that grown-ups saw something in it they thought kids would appreciate. Whoops, you were wrong on that one.

Man was I ever thrilled the rainy day our 7th grade science teacher brought Star Trek: The Trouble With Tribbles. Of course, even "It's alright to cry" was better than "Red Balloon".

(Our second most common film was the Donald Duck mathematics cartoon.)

What movies were you forced to watch over and over in school?

is a steaming pile. (That's a quote from my friend John, but the other six of us who saw it last night agreed completely.)

Stay far far away. This movie reeks.

Just watched the movie adaptation of Stephen King's "The Mist" with a friend.

It gets an F based solely on the ending. Don't see it. Trust me.

An awful, irresponsible, shocking for the sake of shocking ending. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Randomness on entertainment stuff . . .

We went to see Horton Hears a Who last week. Thank goodness for G-rated kids movies, a rare breed in Hollywood these days. And it was fantastic. I recommend it highly.

We also saw for the first time this weekend Enchanted, and it was quite good also. The girls absolutely loved it and watched it another five or six times during their bedtime "movie nights" before we sent it back to NetFlix today.

I thought last week's "Lost" episode was the weakest yet. But this season is still awesome and the break is gonna kill me.

Anybody still watching "Jericho"? Every stinking episode since the underwhelming premier has been rockin'. The storylines, the action, the pacing -- all great. Better than the first season, in my opinion, despite not having the same mystery mystique. Tomorrow night's season finale has come too soon.

I'm ready for "The Office" to come back.

Okay, watched No Country for Old Men last night.

Um . . . yeah. It was good. Well put together.
I was pretty underwhelmed after the build up. No idea how it got so many nominations.
Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin were very good, but I don't really see how any reasonably good actor couldn't have done with Javier Bardem did.

I kinda didn't get it. It had the "Oh well" ending of Fargo but without Marge Gunderson's simple, moral voice asking the "Why?" question.

It wasn't better than Into the Wild.

I'm betting I will like There Will Be Blood a lot better.

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is an amazing, beautiful film.

Adapted from Jon Krakauer's book and based on a true story, it follows the post-college wanderlust of Chris McCandless (played incredibly by Emile Hirsch) as he abandons the safety and security of his well-to-do but dysfunctional family, sends his life savings to charity, burns his Social Security card, and disappears into the tides of life on the outskirts of "society." Adopting the new identity Alexander Supertramp, McCandless becomes one of those two-legged memorials to the law of happenstance, riding the rails, camping in the desert, working a wheat combine, kayaking into Mexico, and eventually making his way back up into his last frontier -- the social void of the unspoiled Alaskan wilderness.

Along the way McCandless meets a variety of fellow tramps and Good Samaritan types, most notably war veteran widower Hal Holbrook whose final scene with Hirsch is heartbreaking.

The movie really resonated with me, perhaps for the same reasons Paul Auster's "homeless men" stories resonate with me: they ponder what happens when man is stripped down to the solitude of the merest existence. Does stripping yourself of the constraints of society and attainments cause one to cease to exist? Or does shrinking this way to the smallest point humanly possible -- for Alexander Supertramp, living dangerously in the harsh wild without any creature comforts -- actually make existence more full, more true?

The irony in Into the Wild (I think) is that both possibilities are realized. McCandless comes to a startling realization at the apex of his physical despair, but the message of the film may be that his willingness to embrace hardship, his willingness to fling himself into the violent whimsy of a great big earth was the only way to reach that realization.

In any event, the movie is fantastic. Beautifully acted and beautifully photographed. The supporting cast (Holbrook, William Hurt, Marcia Gay Harden, Vince Vaughn, Catherine Keener, Jena Malone) is excellent, none more so than the unknown supporting actor (IMDB does not identify him clearly) who played the old man trying to reconcile with an angry wife (girlfriend?) on a payphone. That 45 second scene alone packed more emotional power than any other movie I've seen in the last year.

I haven't seen the films nominated for Best Picture at the last Oscars (No Country for Old Men arrives today from NetFlix), but I think I will have a hard time understanding how Into the Wild got overlooked.

(FYI: The movie is 2.5 hours long and does contain some content that would be objectionable to some of our readers.)

It was my first real action movie. Rambo: First Blood part 2. I was a young teenager, and Rambo was the man! My mom had to buy me and my friend the tickets since we were underage. It remained my favorite movie until I was in my 20's (and I switched to "Princess Bride". My ,how we change.)

I've read the novels for all 3 "Rambo" movies and have been a fan for longer than some have been alive, so I figure that qualifies me to make some comments... (I also used to have a Rambo fan magazine and covered my locker and notebooks with Rambo pictures. And I'm not even going to tell you about the lifesize Rambo standup that I had in my room, that I finally let my parents throw away last year...since it was taking up space at their house.)

Here is the order of the "Rambo" movies:
First Blood (1982)
Rambo: First Blood part 2 (1985)
Rambo III (1988)
Rambo (Opening Tomorrow)

As a fan, can I just say that the titles bug me? The third on should have been called Blank: First Blood part 3. I know what happened. "Rambo: First Blood part 2" became known as "Rambo II" so it was natural to name the third one "Rambo III" but it's still incorrect. So the movie opening tomorrow is actually the second movie to be called "Rambo". Weird, huh?

It's pretty obvious what Stallone is doing. He's trying to squeeze the last bit of life out of his two most famous characters. He did it last year with Rocky Balboa, and now here comes, Rambo. The parallels are not very subtle.
Both series became known for sequels that were far different than the original. And now these two final chapters bear the name of the character only with no numbers after it.

Best of luck to him though. I say it as a fan. I think he's trying to follow another trend...people who bought tickets for "The Passion of the Christ". Oh, yeah, I'm serious. Promoting "Rocky Balboa", Stallone made the circuit of conservative radio talk shows, emphasizing Rocky's "family values" and "wholesome entertainment". Now with the "Rambo" plotline being about him rescuing Christian missionaries, I'm sure I'm right.

He also talked about how current movies seem to ignore baby boomers. These two movies are like an aging Baby Boomer's carnal scream, "We've still got it!"(Cue Walt Whitman: "I unleash my barbaric YAWP on the rooftops of the world")

The first movie "First Blood" is amazing. Go watch a clip on youtube or put it in your Netflix queue. It's nothing like the sequels. Like Rocky, Stallone OWNS the character and shows some serious acting chops. Rocky I and "First Blood" are both more like dramas with action sequences. (And the hero loses in the end of both, but not without making a "statement".) All the sequels are just action movies where the hero wins.

"First Blood" was based on a novel by David Morrell (who writes like Robert Ludlum if that's your cup of tea. I went through a Morrell kick after I read "First Blood" and was seriously impressed. He writes great suspense, spy thriller stuff.) Yes, the book is better than the movie, and the movie is good. It's very different than the current "Rambo" persona. (Rambo dies in the end by the way.) First Blood is definitely a commentary on how vietnam vets were treated after the war.

Anyway, I don't watch "R" rated action movies anymore, but there will always be a soft spot in my heart for "Rambo". (Hey, to a teenage boy, the dude's awesome.) I hope this one does well, because I'm still a Stallone fan. (And Reagan liked Rambo too!)

I will always remember the moment in "Rambo: First Blood part 2" when the camera focuses on a muddy cliff and then eyes open. Whoa.

I'm going off the internet for the rest of the week, but before I do, I just had to say that Cloverfield is face-meltingly awesome. If you have any inclination to do so, go see it.

If I may put on my film analyst hat for a second, I would say that what Godzilla and Them! (etc.) were to post-Hiroshima Cold War paranoia, Cloverfield is to post-9/11 War on Terror paranoia.

But putting my fanboy beanie back on, it just rocked.

I've had the four-disc special extended edition DVD of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King sitting, still shrink-wrapped, on my shelf ever since it was released (four years ago?). Tonight I finally opened it, and now I am finally watching it.

The wife is out of town for the weekend on a scrapbooking getaway, so it seemed like a good opportunity to indulge in four hours of nerdtertainment.

You can read my hyperbolic review of the film from the days of Thinkling yore here.

What a great flick this is. Revisiting it reminds me what utter crap all the subsequent pretenders to the fantasy film throne have been. Even the Narnia film, good though it was, seems reasonably forgettable in comparison.

As voted on by a select panel of my one year old.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

I was looking through my blockbuster.com queue, and checking new releases, and just for (morbid) curiousity, I clicked on the new movie "Aliens V. Predator: Requium" to see what people were saying about it. I came across this comment from a viewer, and yipes. It's probably scarier than the actual movie.

this movie is off the hook i will want to see it AGAIN!!!!!! only not for children UNDER the age of 5 for male and female under 3

So apparently it's OK for a 4 year old girl to see this movie, but a boy would have to wait until he's at least 6 to see this r-rated gore-fest?

If they ever start issuing parenting licenses, this guy shouldn't get one.

Was pretty good. In my opinion.

The ending felt a little tacked-on, however. Sort of War of the Worlds-ish.

Here are some excerpts, but you should go read the whole thing.

The release of The Golden Compass as a major motion picture represents a new challenge for Christians -- especially parents. The release of a popular film with major actors that presents a message directly subversive of Christianity is something new. It is not likely to be the last.

Having seen the movie at an advance viewing and having read all three books of His Dark Materials, I can assure Christians that we face a real challenge -- one that will require careful thinking and intellectual engagement.

The direct attack on Christianity and God is toned down in the movie. But any informed person will recognize the Magisterium as representing the Church and Christianity. Of course, in our world the Magisterium is the authoritative leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In Pullman's world it represents Christianity as a whole.

Indeed, Pullman's tale tells of John Calvin assuming the papacy and moving the headquarters to Geneva, thus combining the Catholic and Reformation traditions into one. In the movie, the Magisterium appears to be located in London. In any event, the point is not subtle.

The most direct attacks upon Christianity and God do not appear until the last book, The Amber Spyglass, in which Lyra and Will (a boy her age who first appears in the second book) eventually kill God, who turns out to be a decrepit and feeble old imposter who was hardly worth the killing.

Put simply, Pullman hates C. S. Lewis's work The Chronicles of Narnia. He told Hannah Rosin that Lewis's famous work is "morally loathsome" and "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I ever read." Narnia, he said, "is the Christian one . . . . And mine is the non-Christian."

When the first Narnia film was released in 2005, Pullman described the books as "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice."

Indeed, Pullman's His Dark Materials is intended as an answer to Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. What Lewis (and J. R. R. Tolkein) did for Christianity, Pullman wants to do for atheism.

So, what should Christians do?

A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.

This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.
We should recognize that the Christian Church has some very embarrassing moments in its history - moments when it has failed to represent the truth of the Gospel and the love of Christ. Authors like Philip Pullman take advantage of these failures in order to paint the entire Christian Church as a conspiracy against human happiness and freedom. Of course, that charge will not stand close scrutiny, and we can face it head-on with a thoughtful response.

Some Christians have also held very unhelpful views of human sexuality. These, we must admit, would include figures as great and influential as Augustine and, alas, C. S. Lewis. But these figures, rightly influential in other areas of the faith, are not representative in this case of biblical sexuality. We can set the record straight.

Should we be concerned that people, young and old, will be confused by this movie? Of course. But I do not believe that a boycott will dissuade the general public from seeing the film. I am very concerned when I think of so many people being entertained by such a subversive message delivered by such a seductive medium. We are responsible to show them, in so far as we are able, that the Magisterium of The Golden Compass is not a fair or accurate representation of the Christian Church.

There's a lot I didn't paste here. If you don't know much about the books or movies or Pullman, please go read the whole article. I learned a lot, you will too, since Mohler has actually read all the books and seen the movie.

But for those of you who aren't going to go read the whole thing....here's his conclusion, which I really liked.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has enemies; this we know. Christian parents must be informed about His Dark Materials and inform others. We must take the responsibility to use interest in this film to teach our own children to think biblically and to be discerning in their engagement with the media in all forms. We should arm our children to be able to talk about this project with their classmates without fear or rancor.

Philip Pullman has an agenda, but so do we. Our agenda is the Gospel of Christ -- a message infinitely more powerful than that of The Golden Compass. Pullman's worldview of unrestricted human autonomy would be nightmarish if ever achieved. His story promises liberation but would enslave human beings to themselves and destroy all transcendent value.

The biblical story of the Fall is true, after all, and our only rescue is through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The curse of sin was not reversed by adolescents playing at sex in a garden, but by the Son of God shedding His blood on a cross.

So let's get our bearings straight as we think and talk about The Golden Compass. This movie does represent a great challenge, but a challenge that Christians should always be ready to meet.

Notice that he doesn't advocate a boycott or anything like that. Merely that Christians should be informed and prepared. "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15)

Most of you are well aware of Philip Pullman, the Christopher Hitchens of young adult fiction, and his effort to craft an anti-Narnia through the His Dark Materials trilogy. The first book, The Golden Compass, will soon be out on film.

Brent Bozell has no kind words for the movie, the author, or the book, and does a good job of outlining the subversive themes.

As right as Bozell is to point out the anti-Christian agenda in Pullman's work, Leithart offers a more light-hearted take that, curiously, is rooted in a cynicism about Hollywood culture that is second nature to most contemporary Christians. He cites reports of how the movie has muted the atheism of the books and turned the plot from a conspiracy against God to a fairly generic underdog tale. And Pullman's foundational retelling of the fall? Sacrificed on the altar of box office success. As Hannah Rosin writes in the Atlantic, "no $180 million movie is going to trash the first book of the Bible, so the movie will have to do without it."

So we might not want to abandon that cynicism when another's ox is being gored, and take delight in how Hollywood's desire for dollars neutered even militant atheism:

No doubt much of this is due to Christian activism in Hollywood. Producers know they're dealing with a large audience of movie-going, earnest, activist Christians, and they don't want to rouse the giant.

But much of it is simply the genius of Hollywood, which can take the most subversive of stories and dissolve it into sentimentality and cliche. If only we could get Al-qaeda to make its headquarters in Southern California, the war on terror would soon be over.

So, Hooray for Hollywood! And, of course, add a cheer or two for grubby capitalism.

I just watched part of Hoosiers for the millionth time -- I love that movie. I especially love Gene Hackman in that movie.

As a young lad, I would mentally typecast Gene as Lex Luther. Anytime I saw the guy in a film, I'd think, There's Lex! As I matured, I realized what a great actor the guy is.

I especially loved him as Rankin Fitch in The Runaway Jury. He's such a convincing villain.

Does anyone have any good Gene Hackman suggestions for my Netflix queue?

Anyone seen this flick? It was so good.

It's an adaptation of the W. Somerset Maugham novel, starring Edward Norton and Naomi Watts (love her!) as a passionless doctor and his adulterous wife who fall in love while he works in the cholera-ravaged villages of 1920s China. (Yes, you read that right; it's about a husband and wife who fall in love.)

Great, great movie. Great acting. Masterful directing. The photography is beautiful. And the story is an awesome one of grace and forgiveness and sacrifice.

Anybody else seen any good movies lately?

How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life. -- Kirk

Friday Night Lights has got the best ending of any sports movie I've ever seen. ...

[Spoiler alert!]
Read the rest of this entry . . .

I'm watching last night's ep of "Entourage" on Tivo right now, and lo and behold here's M. Night Shyamalan playing himself, doing a send-up of himself. Awesome.
Based on interviews and other articles, despite liking the man as an artist, I was never convinced he had much of a sense of humor about himself. I guess I was wrong. Self-deprecation becomes him.