Review of The Cove

The Cove throws a lot of things into one hat. It is part political and eco-activism, part investigative journalism and even part espionage thriller. Yet, at its core, The Cove is a true-life story about one man’s crusade to redeem his past mistakes. Ric O’Barry was one of the dolphin trainers on the landmark TV show Flipper (popular in the States before TV even arrived in South Africa). According to O’Barry, Flipper played a major role in kick-starting the now multi-billion dollar domesticated dolphin industry, but it was O’Barry’s experience in working so closely with his TV star dolphins that led him to believe that keeping dolphins in activity was both harmful and abusive to them.

Eager to atone for his mistakes, a remorseful O’Barry has since spent his life in actively working to free and protect dolphins. The Cove tells the story of how O’Barry has uncovered a dark secret in a small lagoon near a town called Taiji off the Japanese coast. Behind a wall of barbed wire and a plethora of “Keep Out” signs, and under the cover of night and intimidating guards, it is here that the fishermen of Taiji engage in an unseen hunt for thousands of dolphins. Prevented from seeing what is really happening in “the cove,” O’Barry and a group of activists led by the movie’s director Louie Psihoyos, embark on a covert mission to penetrate its barriers and in so doing they succeed in uncovering horrifying instances of animal abuse and also fairly serious threats to human health.

Although a documentary, The Cove is so expertly done that it manages to keep you on the edge of your seat throughout. Although it makes some difficult to prove assertions about dolphins such as their committing suicide when depressed or having self-awareness, it is still advocacy filmmaking at its best. O’Barry and his team use state-of-the-art equipment (including cameras cleverly disguised as rocks by George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic), and they form a kind of “Ocean’s 11” team of experts who use espionage techniques to get at the truth. And when they do, the truth is quite simply terrifying, not only in the cruelty that is displayed to these wonderful animals but also the threat this particular fishing industry has for human health. In selling dolphin meat disguised as whale meat they are exposing people to record levels of mercury poisoning.

The Cove also includes a great many facts about the toothless International Whaling Commission which is failing to protect dolphins properly. It shows how Japan is funding the fishing campaigns of many poorer companies and thereby buying their support in rolling back legislation that does actually protect whales.

All in all, The Cove is full value for winning an Oscar for best documentary. I cannot recommend too highly that you go to see it as soon as you can. The intention of The Cove is clear in that it seeks to expose you to some horrifying details of humanities cruelty and short-sightedness and thereby spurring you into action. I certainly hope The Cove exceeds its own expectations in this regard. Christians have been mandated by Scripture to care for and protect creation, and so getting involved in projects like this is a vital expression of our own faith.

Go and see this movie! 5 stars out of 5 for this absolutely brilliant eco-documentary!

Amongst numerous other awards, The Cove was awarded the IKEA Green Prize at the Rome International Film Festival. Here's a statement from the Jury on why The Cove was chosen for this award:

“for re-writing the documentary genre, transforming it into a cleverly edited film that packs an emotional punch with fast-paced action, scientific analysis and a story of personal redemption. The use of thermal camera shots, meta-language, video-reality and archive footage means this work transcends the glossy image of the natural history documentary. The original, hitherto unexplored theme informs us about a horror perpetrated in a bay in Japan that has repercussions around the world, a global horror that lays bare the cultural consumerism behind live animal shows, coupled with issues surrounding food safety and governmental corruption in the war to control the seas. We left the cinema with the feeling we could do something to dismantle all the bays of horror. Taking on the mantle of responsibility, we shout: No More Coves”

Review of The Hurt Locker

Does anyone else find it interesting that The Hurt Locker, a movie about the American invasion of Iraq won an Oscar over its main rival, Avatar, which was a movie about an American invasion of a distant planet? That said, The Hurt Locker was widely advertised as being ‘apolitical’ and with America being so polarised between those who support the war and those who don’t, it was probably wise to steer a middle line.

The Hurt Locker attempts this middle line by simply telling the story of 3 people, all team members of a bomb squad. They don’t really get along because James, the new bomb disposal expert is a risk-taking adrenaline junkie who endangers them all. At the beginning of the movie they have less than 40 days to get through before finishing their tour of duty, and James’ fellow squad members are desperate to make it out in one piece.

The Hurt Locker is brilliantly acted with Jeremy Renner, David Morse and Anthony Mackie taking the lead roles. This is not a movie you necessarily enjoy watching because it does its level best to take you into Iraq – it pins you to your seat with the tension of life on the edge in a war-torn country. People die horribly everyday and the movie attempts to immerse its viewers in the hard-core reality of that. Some of the soldiers react by slowly falling apart while others become adrenaline junkies – living for the ‘thrill’ they get out of danger. However, while different people react in different ways, not one of them escapes without being irrevocably changed.

By the way, I don’t think The Hurt Locker succeeded in being ‘apolitical’. Certainly its portrayal of Iraqis is more than a little condescending and dehumanising. While the Americans are not portrayed as being superior in terms of their morals or value systems, they are still more humanely and less stereotypically depicted. In this we are encouraged to follow them, sympathise with them and even root for them to win the various conflicts they engage in. This is probably because The Hurt Locker is telling their particular story but I still struggle with how a movie about the Iraq war cannot even touch on the many innocent Iraqis who suffer everyday directly because of American presence in their country. You cannot be ‘apolitical’ if you don’t level the playing fields.

The end of the movie focuses on how the irrevocable change that war brings results in soldiers struggling to settle down into the normality of civilian life. James is stripped bare from his experiences, he is emotionally and morally vacant, and totally out of place in his home. In a rather cynical monologue with his toddler son, James tells him that while he loves many things as a young child, the inevitability of life means he will slowly stop loving ‘many things’ until he is eventually left loving only one or two things. James then sadly concludes by stating that he is left loving only one thing, and by that he means the adrenaline thrill of war.

The Hurt Locker does a good job in the way it illustrates how war and violence can strip people of their essential humanity, leaving them unable to properly function in normal environments. There is no doubt that The Hurt Locker is well made and brilliantly acted. Even though I am skeptical of its ‘apolitical’ stance, I do think its messages on many levels are compelling and thought provoking even if they are difficult to view. I do, however, remain unconvinced that this movie was worth an Oscar because I just don’t think it is worth more than 3 stars out of 5. Be warned that there is violence and quite strong language throughout.

Review of Everybody's Fine

This movie got panned by many critics overseas, and was largely ignored by South Africans but for the life of me I can’t work out why. Its critics lambasted it for being overly sentimental and having a too-obvious plot with poor character development, and while I can appreciate the validity of these criticisms, I would still maintain the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses.

Everybody’s Fine is a remake of an Italian movie, and is a heartfelt, sad and yet ultimately redeeming comedy-drama. Robert De Niro is superb as Frank, a recently widowed father of four who sets out on a road trip to reconnect with his children. His life as a blue collar worker (he painted pvc onto phone lines) has led to him suffering from a debilitation of the lungs. However, the sacrificial labours of his life were gladly given because he was so determined to provide for his family and allow his children to succeed. Although his medical condition prevents him from flying, Frank’s disappointment that all four children cancelled on a family visit leads to him braving the bus and rail networks of the U.S.

The double play of Frank’s work with telephone wires and his lack of connection with his children is used throughout. Everybody’s Fine tries hard to use visual ‘cinema noveau’ moments to promote its message, and I think these can be appreciated more often than not. Frank’s surprise visits are not well received by his children at all, and ultimately, his journey really ‘surprises’ everyone because he finds his children are not nearly as successful as he was led to believe. It seems that the pressure of his own hard work in providing for them, as well as his constant admonishments for them to succeed, has resulted in each of them deeply fearing letting him down. This pressure created a fundamental lack of connection with Frank because each and every single one of them was led to lie to him in some way about their work or lifestyle.

This is exactly where the movie packs a serious punch ... in its message. For as Frank seeks to take on his late wife’s role of keeping the children together, they all discover uncomfortable truths about themselves. Frank realises that only providing materially for his family is not enough, but that they also need his fatherly affirmation and acceptance as well. He realises that all he really wants for them is not success but happiness – to be more fully themselves and to be content and find meaning in their work and relationships.

Anyone who has been brought up in the home of a ‘baby-boomer’ would appreciate this movie. So many today have similarly strained relationships with their fathers where the pressure to be successful has sometimes caused intense relational and personal disharmony. More than this so many have experienced fathers who have been good providers, but perhaps have not been emotionally (or spiritually) available to mentor, love and guide. Everybody’s Fine is extremely relevant in this regard.

A great moment of loss is experienced towards the end of the movie, which ultimately forces the family to draw closer together in love and support. Everybody’s Fine is sad, funny, touching and deeply redemptive. It might get a little soppy, and the characters of the children might be a little weak, but De Niro’s acting and the strong realism of the relationships means that the overall message is empathically carried.

It is the kind of movie which makes you want to call up your own parents, or gather up your children in your arms and hug them, and if this is the only reminder you carry away with you then it is well worth it. Although the ending is perhaps a little too neat, it is still an excellent reminder that if we truly seek to engage with our loved ones without forcing our own personal agendas on them, then love can win through even a lifetime of mistakes.

This movie is full value for its 3 (and a half) stars out of five.

Review of The Blind Side

I must confess to being well and truly over ‘sports’ movies. The age old formula of underdogs winning against great odds has been way overdone by Hollywood. The good news is that although this movie involves sports, and although it centers on an underdog, it is in no way formulaic. The Blind Side “blind-sided” me totally, not just because it is a true story, but because the movie as a whole was so refreshing. It is a sports movie whose focus was not sports but family, it is an underdog movie whose focus was not the victory of one person’s talent but the triumph of relationships and compassion.

It is well known by now that Sandra Bullock deservedly won an Oscar for her role as the no-nonsense ‘force of nature’ Leigh Anne Tuohy. She and her family, husband Sean (Tim McGraw), daughter Collins (Lily Collins) and son SJ (Jae Head) opened their home and hearts to Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), a young giant of a man whose life had so far been marked only by abuse, abandonment and poverty. His IQ had been assessed at 80 and his school grades put him in only the 6th percentile of achievement. The movie details his relationship with the Tuohy’s which led him to eventually not only playing top class football but also adding 20-30 points to his IQ and totally transforming his scholastic achievements. Michael’s explosive power and great physical strength are pointedly not what saved him, instead it was being brought into a loving environment where he was affirmed, supported and encouraged to spend up to seven hours a day doing catch up home work. The loving support that surrounded him in his final years as a teenager was enough to assist him in becoming a very well rounded and capable human being.

I don’t want to say too much about the story line itself other than that it involves a few tear-drawing and heart-warming moments. Critics of the movie have accused it of being a little over sentimental, but in my opinion any sentimental moments are entirely validated by it being a true story. The Blind Side has also been critiqued for being another example of Hollywood’s tendency to depict white ‘heroes’ intervening on behalf of a poor, helpless black person. Again this dynamic is complicated by the fact that it actually happened. Frankly, it is sad when people have to find reasons to become cynical over good news. When someone takes a risk on behalf of another and it has a happy ending, why can’t we just celebrate the joy of the moment?

At the end of the day, this is what is most remarkable about this movie. That a family felt compelled by God’s love to reach out to a fellow human being in a way that broadened their own comfort zones and understanding of the world around them. (The Tuohy’s Christian faith is always implicit if not always explicit displayed in the movie). Perhaps my favourite line was where Lee Anne was told by a friend, “You have changed that boy’s life,” and she replied, “No, he’s changed mine.” For this is the reality of loving others as Christ has called us to – we become irrevocably transformed by the experience. We find that the entire process of serving others ends up giving us far more than we could possibly have given ourselves. Michael Oher is a poverty stricken young black man who is sheltered, clothed and fed by a rich, white family but you clearly see through the movie that he gives to them greater wealth in terms of relationship, meaning and hope.

The Tuohy’s example of living their faith certainly impressed Sandra Bullock who admitted being initially very cynical of Christians. "I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith," Bullock commented. "I finally met people who walk the walk."

I warmly recommend this movie to you and award it 4 stars out of 5. And since she certainly seemed to have the last word on everything in her family, it is appropriate to close with a quote from Leigh Anne Tuohy herself:

“I am telling you there are Michael Ohers everywhere—wonderful kids who need a home, who want a family. It doesn’t take much searching out, because they are right under your nose. And they don’t need to be brilliant at football. They don’t need to be someone who excels at anything other than loving you and wanting love in return.”

Review of Alice in Wonderland

One would think that if you watch a Tim Burton/ Johnny Depp collaboration based upon a legendary Lewis Carroll novel, you would get a movie that is equal parts madcap hilarity, witty dialogue, and enterprising spontaneity all thrown in with more than a sprinkling of genius. After all, these three characters all share a certain zany similarity that should surely result in a very entertaining synergy. Sadly, this is not the case. My only reaction to this latest version of Alice in Wonderland is an entirely underwhelmed “meh”. Look, it is not a bad movie by any means; it is just that it is very average. Allow me to explain why.

The action in this movie has been moved forward by thirteen years. Alice is now almost 20 - her previous experience in Wonderland is explained as a confused dream that later turns out to be genuine. The 19 year old version of Alice is attending a garden party where a very unappealing member of the aristocracy proposes marriage. Fleeing him, and pursuing a overcoat adorned white rabbit, she kneels at the base of a tree and peers down an immense hole. Then she falls in. All according to “Carollian” plan so far, no complaints from me.

The fall is one of the more enjoyable parts of the film because special effects are now advanced enough to finally do justice to Carroll’s imagination. Alice lands in a small, round room where she has to shrink, grow and then shrink some more to fit through the door. On the other side of the door Alice runs into a crowd of wonderfully absurd figures who launch into a wonderfully absurd discussion of whether or not this is the “right Alice.” Everything so far is entirely worthy of Carroll’s original story.

Unfortunately, that’s where it ends. Cue end of Alice in Wonderland, and cue beginning of Alice in Middle Earth. The plot from here on is standard Tolkien fantasy fare. It involves a land overtaken by the darkness of a wicked tyrant, a monster (the Jabberwocky), and the search for a magical item (sword) by a reluctant, unassuming hero. Other than one or two moments of dialogue, and the appearance of his original characters, there is almost nothing “Carrollian” left in the story line. People have always loved Carroll’s work for its wonderful unpredictability and bizarre round-about logic, but this story line is entirely too predictable if you ask me.

Look there are some enjoyable aspects to the movie nonetheless. The bloke sitting next to me kept on giggling throughout at some of the lighter moments, and there was definitely some “Lewis Carroll” inspired conversations (more “muchness” anyone?). There was also some quality acting. Mia Wasikowska was good as Alice, Johnny Depp was entertaining playing the Mad Hatter, and Helana Bonham Carter was quite wonderful as the evil Red Queen. Anne Hathaway on the other hand was truly awful as the White Queen. In fact, she was downright creepy with her all-white, anemic ensemble contrasting starkly with black lipstick and fingernails. To be honest, if I was a citizen of Wonderland I would be as uncomfortable with her being my political liege as I would the tyrannical Red Queen. Flouncing about distractedly with hands in the air she seemed to be only a couple of tottering steps away from a complete mental breakdown.

Then there is the meaning or message of the movie. True to form, Tim Burton steers away from the Christian symbolism of the original story, but instead settles on a kind of a “I am a woman, hear me roar” ending. Alice is transformed from a distracted 19 year old Victorian girl to a 21st century industry-shaking pioneer at the end of the movie. So we are meant to believe that capitalism is the answer for a girl who falls down rabbit holes. Boardrooms and international trade in China is the natural progression from the wonderfully multi-coloured world of Wonderland. I could almost picture Alice clicking open her laptop as she sails away to China in that very strange final scene. “Meh” is all I have to say to that. Look, I am not against a message of feminine empowerment at all, it’s just that it didn’t fit into the original character and vision of the story of Alice in Wonderland. Alice and the other characters were all somewhat anti-establishment so a colonial capitalist is just not what you would think Alice would grow up to be.

In fact, that’s the whole problem of this movie. Not everything “fits”. Burton’s overall vision doesn’t mesh with Lewis Carroll’s and so each weakens rather than strengthens the other. The special effects, especially in the 3D version are a treat, and some of the Lewis Carroll inspired conversation is delightful, but on the whole they don’t manage to lift an ordinary storyline enough to make the entire enterprise above average.

An entirely, ho hum, mildly entertaining “meh” score of 2 (and a half) out of 5 for this latest rendition of Alice in Wonderland.

Review of It's Complicated

The thing is this movie really isn’t all that complicated. Sure, the main character, played with typical skill and style by Meryl Streep, gets her life into quite an involved relational tangle, but if you are looking for a deep and dramatic message on the effects of divorce, forget it. This movie is almost entirely focused on getting laughs, which it does to varying degrees. If you want a serious statement on the effect of divorce on family then you might want to hire one of Meryl’s first movies – Kramer vs Kramer (1978).

Meryl plays Jane Adler who runs a successful bakery/ coffee shop and lives in a stunningly beautiful home in the up market Santa Barbara area (just how many muffins does need to sell to live there?). It has taken her the last ten years to get over her divorce from hubbie Jake (in every sense of the word a larger than life appearance by Alec Baldwin). Jake had cheated on her with a much younger woman Agness (Lake Bell) leaving her to bring up 3 children alone. When the last of her children leaves home to go to college, she is left feeling more than a little lonely and isolated. Which is why when she meets up with Jake at a hotel she (fueled by alcohol) ends up in his bed and becomes the ‘other woman’ to the other woman. Adding to this relational mess are her growing feelings toward a successful architect (Steve Martin) who is building the additions to her already fantastically large home. Thrown into the mix are three fairly successful and well-adjusted children who seem to do more looking after their parents then the other way around.

Rom-com and chick flick specialist, Nancy Meyers directs what essentially turns out to be a light-hearted look at the relationships and love lives of 50-somethings. While both Streep and Baldwin put in strong performances, this is probably the major problem of the movies itself. The persistent lightheartedness means that many of the situations created have little basis in reality. There are one or two moments of strong emotion but the true effects of a traumatic divorce are never really engaged. If you go to this movie without expecting any real depth (which you would normally expect from a Streep movie) then you will probably enjoy it. That is, of course, if you are not easily offended. Adultery and smoking dagga are just two subjects treated very loosely by a movie that refuses to take itself seriously at any level. Questions could be asked whether or not both these issues, which devastate lives on a daily basis, should not be treated with a little more respect.

Although there are some laugh out loud moments, I really could not award this movie more than 2 and a half stars out of 5.

Review of The Book of Eli

Hollywood’s fascination with post-apocalyptic tales continues in The Book of Eli. With its sepia-toned ash strewn landscapes and crazed cannibals it has a certain similarity of feel to The Road but frankly, that is where any comparisons should end. Whereas The Road is thought-provoking and soul-stirring, The Book of Eli is more akin to a combination of the The Last Samurai meets Mad Max.

The violence in The Road is disturbing but never glorified, for in fact, it actually enhances the overall message as it is a reminder that even the weak can live meaningfully if they cling onto hope amidst the real horrors of their world. The difference is that The Book of Eli’s main character is not a victim, but an almost untouchable warrior who deals out gruesome deaths with a flick of his wrists and with background music pumping. In other words, the violence is both gratuitous and glorified.

Denzel Washington, the son of a Pentecostal pastor and committed Christian, plays the role of Eli – a survivor of a nuclear war that devastated the globe. He believes he has been called by a mysterious ‘small’ voice to carry the only surviving copy of an old KJV Bible across America’s wastelands to some unknown destination ‘in the West’. All other Bibles had been burned by the nuclear war survivors who blamed its teachings for the war (if none of this seems clear to you, don’t worry, it’s not just you).

Along the way he runs into Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who playing to stereotype is a psychotic despot ruler of a small town that is kept in line by his brutal gang members. He has whole teams of his lackeys searching for a copy of ‘the book’ – a Bible because it is his belief that such a book will give him power over others. He is interested in expanding his empire and believes he can use the Bible as a ‘weapon’ to bend peoples wills to his own. Eli also believes in the power of this book but wants to preserve it all costs (at ALL costs believe me) because he hopes its divine wisdom in the right hands will help save his devastated world.

These differences lead to some violent altercations and a pursuit across the bleached landscape as Eli continues his westward quest. In the meantime, Carnegie’s stepdaughter (Mila Kunis) fascinated by Eli and his mysterious faith, throws her lot in with him and becomes involved in his journey and eventual escape TO Alcatraz (sorry about the spoiler).

Christian reaction to this movie in the States has been fascinating. Many Christians have wholeheartedly embraced its message because the Bible plays such a central role, and because of Eli’s example of ‘walking by faith not by sight.’ Personally, I struggle to see exactly how this movie positively promotes a Christian worldview. The fact that Washington has been voted the second most influential Christian in Hollywood, and the fact the movie involves preserving a Bible, does not necessarily mean it automatically qualifies as an authentic messenger of Gospel truth.

In fact, not at all for the violence in it quite ruins any message the movie might have. While much of what Eli does is in self-defence, the whole enterprise is far too confused about whether people of faith are ever justified in using violence to proclaim their message. The Church has made this mistake in its history (crusades and inquisitions) quite overlooking that Christ himself endured the very worst of violence and responded only with mercy and forgiveness. We should never forget that the very essence of Christ’s message is intrinsically linked to non-violent responses and ways of being. I especially disliked the way Washington was seen to stylistically whip people’s heads off with all the grace of a Samurai warrior as part of his overall mission. He also was quite prepared to hide and not use his warrior gifts while a woman was raped and her partner murdered because that might conflict with his ‘mission’.

I would give this movie 1 star out of 5, and wouldn’t bother going to see it if you haven’t already.