#OurLeaderTheMockingjay Hunger Games Continues!

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 comes out in November, and I, for one, am waiting on pins and needles for it to come out on DVD. If you haven’t seen The Hunger Games or The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, what are you waiting for? A personal invitation? (This is it.)

Let’s just say I believe Democrats and Establishment Republicans should be fearful these movies might put ideas in the heads of We, The People. So, watch the movies.

HT The Other McCain

Kick Ass 2

There’s a line in the movie that says “I’m in the NFL Dave, you play PeeWee”. Well, Hube is the NFL in this subject area. I’m a PeeWee bench warmer. I won’t get into the quality or believability or whether the movie sticks to the written matter. I don’t qualify to speak on that. For those who don’t know about Kick Ass, it’s one continuous flow of gratuitous violence, gratuitous vulgarity, etc, etc. And that’s the draw. Even for me, partially, at least. In this movie full of language the stereotypical Christian finds unbelievably offensive (a 15 year old girl using extremely crude sexual violence talk), one of the new “real person-turned-Super Hero” characters is a former mob muscle turned Born-Again Christian.

There they go again, right? The same ol’ lame crap, right?

Wrong.

This “Born-Again Christian” is extremely believable to Born-Again Christians. I’ll say it again. The character is very much in line with Christian type values, other than “taking the Law into your hands” (which is a requirement for the Super Hero theme). I approve.

Name this movie

Name this interesting, well-made, amazingly scenic, but thematically rough, and very adult movie.

The winner gets another Monica Vitti photo.

No, not really.

You don’t win anything. I just thought I’d post a couple of images of one of the more interesting movies I’ve seen in a while, thanks to DVD.

Canal

Yeah, yeah, “nooks and crannies” this might be better …

Eric means no harm Mr. Waters. He’s on your side.

I didn’t ask you to be his psychologist

It’s about your friend

Update:

The movie is the black comedy, “In Bruges”.

And in Bruges, it’s set.

So, Yorkshire whose guess landed the next country over, would in fact get one point if this were horseshoes. But it’s not. So he doesn’t.

The plot centers on developments which take place as two hit men from England (one apparently Irish in origin) are sent to Bruges by their boss for reasons that are unclear to them. Are they there laying low after killing a priest back in England as part of their last job? Being rewarded with a touristy rest? Are they there, awaiting orders for a new job on the Continent?

The man they work for is the as yet unseen Harry Waters, a gangster boss, who despite his viciousness, is gradually revealed as having a kind of primitive honor-based moral code of his own, along with clear aspirations to bourgeois respectability.

We’ve seen that particular plot theme before of course: a ruthless mobster who attempts to live up to what few rules he does recognize.

In this movie it stands as a kind of intertwining but critical subplot, as the mobster in question, Harry Waters, is not the “focus on” protagonist, but rather constitutes for much of the film an off-screen presence of gradually increasing menace. He might make a classical antagonist if the true antagonist in this film were not of another kind entirely.

Remember your high school English classes? Man against man … man against nature, … and man against …

The gangster boss role of Harry Waters is particularly well inhabited by Ralph Fiennes, who when he does appear visually, imparts a personality and depth to the character (as do all the actors in this movie) which only adds to the emotional impact of events as they unfold. Despite yourself, you begin to care a bit about the fate of these characters.

Having watched the bonus tracks, this humanizing portrayal of people acting absurdly and even brutishly, was almost certainly intended by the director to produce just such an effect on the viewer.  The actors in their “bonus material” interviews seemed to think so. And they repeatedly remark on what they perceive as the rare quality and sensibility of the script, when judged against other materials they’ve been offered.

This is not a film for everyone. As immune as I am to offhand vulgarity, this movie is notably filled to brimming with the kind of casually obscene blasphemy employed by morally lost characters, which can cause almost any listener to cringe.

The devout and sensitive might have a difficult time bracketing the verbal offenses as part of a necessary characterization process. The film makers themselves acknowledge the over-the-top nature of this aspect of the film, with an ironically intended bonus track of nothing but staccato cuts of verbal obscenity.

Speaking of bonus materials, because In Bruges was shot on location in Bruges, what you see on screen is for the most part where they really were, and what is actually there; the interior top of a certain bell tower, excepted.

There was apparently enough coverage of an early canal tourism scene for the director, or someone , to put together an oddly fascinating – almost mesmerizing – video trip along the canals for which the city is so famous.

The movie stars Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, and Ralph Fiennes, and features Thekla Reuten as the tourist hotel owner and manager. [It was Reuten’s picture in another role that I linked to in Dana’s, First Street Journal blog entry on women with guns. That image was taken from George Clooney’s movie about an American hit man working in Europe.]

One of the more amusing exchanges in the movie occurs when a mot juste obsessed Russian gun dealer offers Harry Waters some hollow point rounds for his gun.

“Would you like some dumdums? You know this word ‘dumdums’? The bullets that make the head explode?”

Waters’ response is, “Well I know I shouldn’t, but … ” as if he is being offered some tempting chocolate covered cherries.

Picking out a few at first, he ends up taking the box.

Photos Of Candace Cameron! (@candacecbure)

This is one beautiful young woman! And I loved her on Full House!

Candace Cameron Bure in her little black dress.

Candace Cameron can cowgirl up!

Yes, Candace Cameron is absolutely beautiful. And she carries her beauty without indecency. But, boys, put your tongues back in your mouths. She’s happily married and has children.

If you think that doesn’t matter, consider this: Tomorrow is one of the Holiest of days for her, her husband and children, and her brother. That’s right, folks, she’s one of those hated Christians! Just like me! And just like multiple authors here! She and her brother, Kirk Cameron

(And if you haven’t seen that movie, you had better go out and hunt it down! Especially the final arguments!)

are both devout Christians and happily married (to other people, you sick morons). It is possible to live around Hollywood and be in Hollywood, but not be of Hollywood.

To Kirk and Candace, and to all Christians reading this blog, I wish you the most Glorious of Holy Days tomorrow! And to all non-Christians reading this blog, I have this to say:

Jesus willingly went through Hell so you could enter Heaven.

And that’s the rest of the story, as some famous person had a habit of saying.

(Edit: See more Candace Cameron here.)

“Captain America” review

I don’t usually go to premiere-day showings, but I’ve been a Cap fan since my early days. I had heard some bad things, and some good, but ultimately one has to make their own call.

SPOILERS BELOW THE FOLD!

The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader: A Review

I had earlier written about the two previous Chronicles of Narnia movies where I praised The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and had grudging praise for Pince Caspian. As I said then, Prince Caspian had departed from CS Lewis’ epic story in some key ways, but Dawn Treader had a new director and promised to hold to CS Lewis’ vision.

The promise was shattered. Not broken, but shattered. Absolutely, beyond repair shattered.

Dawn Treader’s screenplay authors, whoever the minions may be, absolutely destroyed the story from beginning to end.

I had hoped to watch the movie in a theatre to get the full effect of Lewis’ story on a massive screen. I’m glad to report I did not get the opportunity to see this disgrace in the theatres.

What the writers got right:
Names of primary characters
Names of some of the primary places
That’s just about it.

What the writers came close to almost getting right:
The last 15 minutes of the movie
That’s it.

What the writers got wrong:
Everything, and I do mean everything.

If you watch the movie without having ever read CS Lewis’ books, you would consider the movie to be fifth-rate with third-rate special effects and with a couple top-rate actors. But if you watch the movie having read CS Lewis’ books, you will have to rivet yourself to your seat in order to get through the first ten minutes of the movie. And the viewing doesn’t get any easier from there.

The only saving grace is in the acting of the major characters, namely Ben Barnes, Skandar Keynes, and Georgie Hensley. Will Poulter as Eustace does yeoman’s work but he’s still second-rate at best. It is the story that needs to sell the movie, and for CS Lewis fans, the story is of ultimate importance. And the story is a total disaster because the director and the screenplay writers refused to follow the book.

For those who haven’t seen the movie, save your money. For those who spent their money to watch this flop, my condolences. I just got done watching this flop and I feel your pain.

Georgie Henley has a bright future ahead of her with her acting. I expect to see her in a few top-rated movies in the near future. Skandar Keynes and Ben Barnes should have such luck. Oh, they’re skilled enough from my perspective, but let’s face facts. A leading lady has more opportunities at successful roles (where quality matters over blow-it-up-idness) than does a leading man. Especially at their ages.

But back to Dawn Treader. If you haven’t spent your money, save it. Wait till it comes on TV on Fox at 8PM some Wednesday evening or something. It’s not worth paying a farthing to watch. And CS Lewis is spinning in his grave.

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe is the first in a series of seven novels by C S Lewis. Actually, the first novel in the series, fantasy historically speaking, came fifth in the series, I believe (but don’t read ahead, or you’ll lose a lot of value in the series).

I very much enjoyed reading that series as a teen. I also very much enjoyed reading that series to my daughter prior to her reaching the ripe old age of ten (and she enjoyed my reading it to her). It was full of Christian messages, such as obvious failure, not-so-obvious failure, redemption, and duty. Of course, the seemingly omnipotent evil vs the seemingly impotent good played a major role, as well (as it does in today’s real world).

I own the 1988 BBC videotape of LWW and the Walden DVD of LWW and I enjoyed both. Obviously Walden is of much higher quality than the BBC made-for-tv children’s movie. (I re-learned Liam Neeson provided the voice for Aslan.) The Walden quality is very obvious. There is no way I can detract from the quality Walden provided. It is top-notch, as is the story-telling. But…

After I watch a movie on DVD often enough, I watch the movie with attached commentary. There are two commentaries on LWW, one with the kids and one with people behind the scenes. Both include the director. Andrew Adamson directed both LWW and the following Prince Caspian, but didn’t direct the upcoming Voyage of the Dawn Treader (due out 12102010) and I believe I know part of the reason why.

Walden’s LWW relied heavily on C S Lewis’ book with some artistic differences, which is common in movies. And I don’t have a problem with that, at all. It’s expected. Those who hadn’t read the book prior to watching the movie wouldn’t notice anything missing and would very much enjoy the movie. Many who had read the book still wouldn’t miss anything in the movie.

But there’s a part in the book that is very much missing in the movie, and I was very much disappointed to find it missing. More on that soon.

Abramson said he read the series as a child and was drawn to the series, but he has apparently missed the whole message interwoven into the series. Let me lay it out very clearly: Aslan is Jesus. There is no denying that fact. Aslan is Jesus. Without that clear understanding and the ramifications of that clear understanding, there can be no proper treatment of LWW with respect to C S Lewis.

Listening to the commentary with ‘behind the camera’ folk, I found out Abramson had no idea why Lewis chose a lion (or he denied the reason to himself and searched for a different reason). Without that understanding, very much is missing. In the book, after the battle was over, Aslan chastized Lucy for ignoring everyone else and paying attention only to her then-healthy brother. “Must more die for your brother?” Abramson intentionally chose to remove this to prevent a let-down in the victory high. But it is very important in Christianity. Don’t let any victory high cause you to ignore your specifically laid out duties (she was responsible for the fire-berry juice and its use). And Christians fail and must be reprimanded, even in times of victory. This should not have been cut out and altered.

Listening to the commentary on Prince Caspian, I heard more of Abramson’s lack of understanding. Dawn Treader has a different director, and from what I understand, is very interested in returning to the focus of the series to Lewis’ vision. But apparently, FOX, which took over from Disney, foolishly decided to release it in 3-D. It is due out, like I said, on 10Dec10. FOX will also release it in 2-D. I will not watch it in 3-D but I hope to see the 2-D version return to the meat of the meaning of the series of books.

A Stranger Among Us

Thanks to that moonbat Jeff, I have a tune stuck in my head (and you can, too, if you watch the video in the article below). But it reminded me of a movie with no connection other than it portrays a very specific sect of Jews in New York City. A Stranger Among US has Melanie Griffith and a bunch of others I don’t know.

Melanie plays a streetwise detective who is man enough to do any job and has less than optimal morals from a Judeo-Christian perspective. In her efforts to find a murderer, she assimilates herself into a freakish Jewish sect. Okay, it’s only freakish if you’re very shallow and you’re not interested in learning the whys of their ultra-moral lifestyle. But she goes under cover and joins the community to catch a murderer.

As Melanie works to immerse herself and learn the ways and reasons of the Hacidic Jewish community, she learns more about herself and eventually alters her own view of life. And we learn more about the reasons behind the ways of the Hacidic community in the process.

In the end, she captures the bad guy, of course. But her life has also been changed for the better by her immersion into that culture.

I am very quick to rail against Hollyweird for their atrocious portrayals of Christians and “religious” Jews, and there is much against which to rail. But this movie in particular provides a much more honest appraisal of an easily mocked sect of Judaism. I did not see any mockery in the construction of the characters, but I did see a light bulb over Melanie’s head gain in illumination until it had shown brightly.

I consider this particular movie one of the things Hollyweird did right in all the things they do wrong. Having seen it several times myself, I highly recommend it, especially to those weirdos out there that accidentally read my blog.

My Favorite Line From Juno

Bren, you’se a [expletive censored]! I love it!

Overall, I strongly approve this movie despite its non-Christian perspective because it is accidentally Pro-Life. For those who have never seen the movie, it is a “bird-and-the-bees” “oops” movie regarding a high school junior and her life as a prego chick.

Yes, there is a lot of coarse language. Yes, the entire movie is inappropriate for the younger ones. Yes, a deleted scene is actually anti-Christian in that it directly ties a Christian to wholly evil stereotypes. But, yes, I strongly suggest every adult who can “consider the source” to watch the movie.

Thicker Than Water, A Review

I recently bought a “Hallmark Four Pack” from K-Mart (I do my best not to give Wally World a dime). In that Four Pack is the movie “Thicker Than Water.” The back of the dvd case says:

Thicker Than Water
A faded photograph leads powerful attorney Natalie Jones to the bittersweet secrets of her late father’s past – where horses run free, families are bound by honor, and true love really exists. Starring Melissa Gilbert, Brian Wimmer, and Lindsay Wagner. 87 min / Color / Widescreen / Not Rated / Dove “Family-Approved” for All Ages [author’s note: I don’t know where “Jones” came from.]

Whenever I watch a movie, I expect to see a Liberal agenda. If you’re a low-to-mid-level actor and you are a Conservative, “you’ll never work in this town again.” While there may be a perceived underlying liberal bias in the movie if you look very closely, there is nothing whatsoever that this Christian Conservative can argue against. Nothing at all. The hint of liberal bias actually fits well within a Christian world view.

Enough of the political side of the review.

This movie is definitely in the genre of “chick flicks.” And I like “chick flicks.” I expect people drawn to chick flicks will need the Kleenex nearby. I could’ve used some, but my sleeve did the trick. The movie is romantic in the classical sense.

The movie begins after the funeral of a highly-respected judge and the execution of his will has already occurred. Natalie, the successful attorney-daughter of the judge finds out he had a past. He was married to someone else before he was married to her (deceased) mother. And it moves from there. She is thrust into a very rural environment in her search for the truth.

There are 3, 4, 5 love stories intertwined. Maybe more. There is the history of modern-style romance. And there is a new modern-style romance added into the story. But the modern-style romance isn’t the driver of the story. The other, non-romantic, love stories drive this movie.

There is the woman who had a hard life but has been truly charitable despite her lack of resources. There is her refusal to be paid back for her charity, despite her definite need for resources the “pay back” would help alleviate. There is the woman’s devotion to keep a promise someone else made. There is the stewardship of the land despite the hurdles placed in front of her. There is the “right thing to do” aspect, even though “the right thing to do” will cost someone a fortune. And there is, as expected, a growth in understanding and priority-organization.

I consider this a “must see” movie, and not only because Melissa Gilbert (who couldn’t love her work?) stars. It is very family-friendly and very date-friendly. And, husbands, your wives will thank you for suggesting you two watch the movie together. It’s better than a bunch of pretty plants that are already dead.

But, keep that box of Kleenex handy. You’ll need it.