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.

Review of Fantastic Mr. Fox

Whoosh! That’s the sound of many of the jokes in this movie going way above your kid’s heads. Please don’t mistake that as a criticism because I am sure the (older) little ones will love the frenetic pace and physical comedy of this film. It’s just that there is SO much for adults to enjoy as well! Such as sophisticated humour, clever dialogue, true stop motion artistry and some great voice acting. The Fantastic Mr. Fox certainly lives up to its name in every sense of the word.

Based on the book by Roald Dahl (how I loved reading his work growing up), this story features George Clooney. Mr. Fox is a chicken thief (hey, that’s what foxes do after all), but he is a chicken thief with such charisma and flair that he takes it to Mission Impossible standards. On finding out that Mrs Fox (Meryl Streep) is pregnant, he promises her that he will find a less dangerous occupation and becomes a journalist.

Their son Ash (Jason Schwartzman almost stealing the show) turns out to be everything Mr. Fox is not – short, un-athletic, grumpy and generally unattractive. Ash’s struggles are further compounded when his bigger, better looking and more talented cousin, Kristofferson, comes to stay.

Mr. Fox’s obsessive desire to be constantly at the centre of everyone’s attention and his dissatisfaction with family and work results in a severe case of mid-life crisis. With an old accomplice he decides to re-enter the dangerous world of chicken thieving (thereby breaking his promise to his wife) and immediately puts everyone he knows and loves in serious jeopardy.

Mr. Fox, convinced that his legendary wit and quick feet will see him defeat all his opponents, takes on three rather dark and scary farmers, Mr. Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Unfortunately, he (almost) bites off more than he can chew resulting in a 90 minute tale filled with equal parts humour, goofiness, action and warmth.
I have always loved stop motion cinematography. While it may not have the visual splendour of computer generated graphics, it is a craft that because it requires such great patience and careful attention it almost always results in a quality product. Director Wes Anderson has done a wonderful job in this regard, living up to his usual high standards. As mentioned the voice acting is top drawer with George Clooney once again showing how talented he is. In fact, his ability to generate a laugh with Mr. Fox’s “whistle-mouth smack-lips click-finger” trademark is almost worth the ticket price alone.

The quirky eccentricity of the humour may not appeal to all, but for others this will surely make your day. One of the many hilarious vernacular twists is to use the literal word “cuss” (or variations thereof) instead of actual profanity (although I guess some might feel this is just as bad). As much as the dialogue is clever, there are plenty of other moments of droll absurdity such as when otherwise calm animals rabidly devour food, or scream and claw at each other only to then instantly calm down.

As simple as the story line is (think of Ocean’s Eleven done with animals in a stop motion animation), there are plenty of deeper issues it addresses. For example, Mr. Fox’s mid-life crisis almost destroying the lives of his loved ones has been played out in reality too many times to count. His obsession with his own ‘fantastic-ness’ means he is incapable of giving his struggling son (who already lives in his shadow) the time or attention he needs. In fact, Mr. Fox even recruits Kristofferson above Ash to assist in the heists which places even further strain on their struggling father-son relationship.

At its core this film deal with universal issues of identity: a father/husband struggling to love people as much as he loves success, a wife who is being lied to, and a son attempting to find himself by pretending to be what he is not. Ultimately, Mr. Fox needs to come to the rescue not so much by rescuing everyone from the clutches of the three farmers, but by confessing to his loved ones that he has been trying to be fantastic in all the wrong ways.

While children will probably miss much of what is actually going on this film, it is still definitely worth seeing (although younger children may find it a little scary). Heck, don’t even bother taking the kids, go anyway and enjoy it for yourself!

For being pretty fantastic, I give Fantastic Mr. Fox 3 (and a half) stars out of 5.

Review of Valentine's Day

Valentine’s Day is a poor man’s Love Actually, nowhere near as funny or compelling. Sitting through this way-overlong movie is an experience akin to eating stale popcorn without any spice on it – it tastes like cardboard, leaves a funny aftertaste and you know its nutritional value is practically zero.

Set in Los Angeles one busy Valentine’s Day, it follows approximately two dozen different people as they wrestle with their love lives, or complete lack thereof. It has some big name pulling power (these stars must have thought they were signing up for another Love Actually), but this is actually part of its problem. Trying to find enough scene time for all those stars and all those love stories means the movie drags out endlessly, and while there are some good performances interspersed throughout, none of the stars actually have enough screen time to save the movie.
The closest thing to a leading man is Ashton Kutcher who plays Reed Bennett, the owner of Sienna Bouquet, a floral shop and café which serves as something of a flower-strewn gathering point for all the interconnecting narratives. He proposes to his girl friend Morley (Jessica Alba) on the morning of Valentine’s Day while his best friend Julia is smitten with the handsome Dr. Harrison Copeland (Patrick Dempsey) who is no McDreamy in this feature (more of a McNasty). In between other stars such as Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway (great at accents by the way), Queen Latifah, Shirley MacLaine, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Biel and even Taylor Swift make appearances.

As far as finding deeper meaning in this movie, I am forced to return to my image of stale popcorn. There really is nothing here but cardboad tasting cut-out impressions of life and romance as it really is. Sure, there is a ‘kind-of’ affirmation of fidelity through the example of one committed couple of 51 years, Edgar (Hector Elizando) and Estelle (Shirley MacLaine). However, when Edgar finds out that Estelle hasn’t been complete faithful, their struggle with this and eventual reconciliation is superficial and contrived. Edgar does make one interesting point though when Estelle confesses her adultery to him that “The problem with this truth is that it makes everything else seem a lie.” The only thing I can say about this movie is- don’t waste your money and time unless you enjoy the aftertaste of stale popcorn. Oh, and if you do go and watch it then make sure you hang around for the outtakes scene at the end which provide the movie’s funniest moments.

1 out of 5 stars for this movie, and frankly, it is lucky to get the one!

Review of The Road

I remember reading somewhere that apocalyptic literature almost always appears on the scene whenever the world finds itself in some sort of crisis. It certainly seems this way post 9-11 and the global economic recession, for apocalyptic and disaster movies are a dime a dozen of late. The Road is yet another in a fairly long list in this particular genre but it happens one of the very best that I have ever seen.

It certainly is not easy to watch. The post-apocalyptic world of The Road is one filled with darkness and grey, despair and bleak lifelessness. Yet, amidst this hell on earth we see a father’s love for his son, and his son’s love for goodness which guides them both through the mess like a beacon in the dark.

The movie is based on Cormac McCarthy’s Pullitzer prize-winning tale of a father and son struggling to survive in a harsh world of destruction and danger, where violence looms around every corner and the ‘good people’ seem few and far between. McCarthy’s book is a tale of “love among the ruins” that reminds one to keep the flames of goodness and hope flickering even when life is at its very worst.

Set against the backdrop of an unknown apocalypse, we follow "Man" (Viggo Mortensen in his career-best) and "Boy" (11-year-old Kodi Smit-McPhee), unnamed because the world they live in has no time for luxuries such as names. The Road follows them on a dangerous journey in which nature is dead and dying, ash constantly permeates the air, and violent cannibal gangs scavenge among the weakest for their food. You cannot watch this movie and not feel unsettled, or feel along with the Man his sheer desperation to keep his beloved son safe and alive. The Man constantly has flashbacks to better times when his wife (Charlize Theron seen only in flashbacks), shared many happy experiences before civilization fell. These scenes portray a lament for a world that will never be the same again.

So where is God in all this? Well, one character observes that if he does exist "he would have turned his back on humanity long ago." And yet despite the apparent godlessness of this tragic world, God is still somehow there, if only in bits and pieces. The Man makes a declaration that: “The child is my warrant. And if he is not the word of God, then God never spoke." These poignant words echo through the film as The Boy repeatedly challenges The Man to be compassionate to those weaker than them, to be forgiving when they are wronged, and to be thankful when rare blessings emerge. Ultimately, the Boy is a reminder to his father that there is no point in surviving if you lose your humanity in the process. This is how they manage to carry a flame of hope through even the bleakest of landscapes. As McCarthy said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, "It is more important to be good than it is to be smart."

The Man and the Boy constantly use the expression “to carry the fire” as a reminder to keep the spark of human goodness alive. The fire represents the best of people, a kind of self-giving love in a world which has lost all sense of community. The boy has it the most, even though he was born after the apocalypse and never knew a world of charity.

“The Road is a parable of how a child is born into this world where there is no kindness. And yet, he manages to find this and nurture it and even teach [his father]," explains the director John Hillcoat, "Cormac McCarthy [the author] told me that if there's no spiritual dimension, then life is a vacuum and meaningless. He thinks that active struggle with faith is the key. This story is like the book of Job, it's just challenge after challenge after challenge."

This is a seriously good movie but also deeply disturbing. Be warned that this is not an easy movie to watch, although much of the violence is not seen but ‘heard’ and ‘felt” (it is atmospheric). On top of the violence, it also contains some strong language and a few brief scenes of male nudity.

I would give The Road 4 (and a half) stars out of 5.