Fresh Blood
A Motley Vision has added a co-blogger:
I'm happy to announce that Eric Thompson has joined AMV. His emphasis will be film. Although, of course, all of co-bloggers range among the various aspects and genres of arts and culture that follow under the purview of AMV.
His first entry is very thorough, and I think he captures precisely what always troubled me about
The Singles Ward.
That and I've learned what
diegesis means. Rhapsidiom.com looks forward to more interesting discussions like that from Thompson and his cinematic mind.
White & Luttrell
Here are two Mormon artists—Brooke White and Jacob Luttrell—that really deserve their own posts, but I'm going to lump them together for conservation. (I've actually been intending to cover them for a while but haven't found the time or energy.) Plus I think of them, in some regards, in the same vein.
What makes these artists similar isn't necessarily style or genre, though I would contend there is something similar there. But these two are more definitively similar in regards to an era of music that, in many respects, culminated in the early 1970s. Singer/songwriters had a strong showing at this time, as did various Motown artists. I sometimes like to think that Carole King and Marvin Gaye both epitomize these two early 1970s movements, respectively. I also like to think that Carole King and Marvin Gaye epitomize the essence of White and Luttrell, respectively, though they are arguably contemporary and unique in their sound. Certainly they both draw on these influences, 
and at least in the case of Brooke White, Carole King is a direct interest and influence.
In some essence, as a songwriter, Brooke White is still getting off the ground and defining her style. But this is all happening rather rapidly for her, perhaps—but not quite—like the still-relatively-underground Ray LaMontagne, who woke up one day, "decided to quit his job at a shoe factory and pursue a career in music," and "quietly sold over 250,000 copies" on his debut album. Granted, White hasn't experienced this kind of underground swell yet, but I suspect her day is coming, and she has certainly evolved quickly as a musician who wrote her first song, if memory serves me correctly, not too long ago.
White performs somewhat regularly at the famous Roxy on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood. She carries a distinctive and sultry crack in her voice, though you wouldn't know it from every song, as she can lull so smooth when wanted. White might also be vaguely compared to Joss Stone. Her first album, Songs From the Attic, is significant in its originality and composition, and even includes a very nice cover, which I like more than the original, of Aerosmith's 1973 hit, "Dream On."
White will be touring around the Southwest soon, and is working on new material. She will also be performing again at the Roxy on April 4th. Her website can be visited here, and her myspace page here, where some of her music can be sampled.
Jacob Luttrell, as I said, really does deserve a post of his own, but, well, here we are. I first discovered Luttrell through a friend about two years ago on my birthday at a Los Angeles club on Pico, The Mint. It was perhaps the best birthday surprise I ever received. I admittedly hadn't much expectation, but almost from the second he opened his mouth, I was ecstatic. He is, in a word, electrifying, and while his music stands superbly on its own, he is even better in person.
Luttrell's band is tight. That is to say that he works with real musicians, with an obvious ear for not mere soul, but jazz and gospel too. And like White, he writes his own material. Luttrell has also been around the block, as he toured backup with Clay Aiken in his early post-American Idol days.
There is, perhaps, too much to say about Luttrell in a short post like this. He's frequently compared to Stevie Wonder, which seems clear enough when you hear his unbelievable voice, but I think the Marvin Gaye comparison is actually more apt. Even so, he doesn't fit in a box. He's like all the greats in many ways: Gaye, Wonder, Cooke, Redding, Jackson, Richie, and maybe even a sprinkle of Barry White. But in his throwback, as evidenced on his premiere self-starter album, Old School, he is more like a reincarnation of something new, kind of like John Legend or Maxwell who nevertheless don't seem to have as much soul to show for all their clout.
Luttrell joined the Church not too long ago, and has since married with a child on the way. He has also moved to Utah to follow some opportunities, where he is making the rounds among the locals. Needless to say, wherever he goes, he seems to make waves. Check out some of his music, plus some video samples, over here at his myspace page.
One surprise, in both of these artist's cases, is while their music is a throwback, it's surprisingly fresh. Real music. No synth or drum machines, but just good ol' classic sound. Which is where I think they are most similar: they are classic. I expect to see big things from these prodigies.
Also, as a footnote, it might be noted White & Luttrell are linked as friends on myspace.com. :)
Labels: music
TMNT (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 63
Directed by Kevin Munroe
Patrick Stewart / Laurence Fishburne / Sarah Michelle Gellar
87 min. Animation / Action
MPAA: PG (for animated action violence, some scary cartoon images and mild language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 28, 2007
It doesn’t take much to impress the youth of America: “Buck Rogers,” “The Great Space Coaster,” “Voltron,” “Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” See what I mean?
But even if you are a Turtles person, you’ll be sufficiently happy with “TMNT.” It stays true to the four turtle brothers of the 1987 cartoon TV series who are named after great Renaissance masters.
As a Turtle fan, you’ll remember (and try to forget) that there were three full-length, live-action motion picture precursors to “TMNT,” namely “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (1990), “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze” (1991) and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III” (1993). This last one was most unfortunate.
But “TMNT” picks up where that trilogy left off in animated splendor. Of course, I’m talking about our contemporary computer animation, so, at times, the movie has an illusion of reality. In this sense, the movie is phenomenal to look at and is quite beautiful.
The Shredder is dead and his foot clan is without substantial leadership. And there’s no Rocksteady, Bee-bop or Krang, either. Since they have little to challenge them, the turtle boys are on a crime-fighting hiatus, doing relatively “normal” things like tech-support jobs or being birthday party entertainers (no, not that kind, you sicko).
But a new challenge resurfaces when the stars properly align, bringing back another formidable team of sibling warriors from long ago. When these ancient siblings return, 13 monstrosities also come back at the same time.
Now, at this point, I won’t go anymore in-depth into the plot summary: 1. Because this is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I’m writing about. 2. Because the more detailed my description, the nerdier I sound.
I will simplify by explaining that the turtles fight amongst themselves, the ancient sibling warriors, the 13 beasts, the foot clan and each of those groups fights one another. Although I’ve trivialized how the turtles must save the world and their bond of brotherhood, the movie is actually quite fun and entertaining.
My only disappointment was how the filmmakers sold out on Michelangelo’s nunchukas because they’re considered illegal weaponry in countries where this movie will be shown. Oh, they show Mike using them, but in a limited, mostly defensive manner. Yet, as my good friend, Steve, pointed out, Leonardo wields his samurai swords onscreen “like it’s his birthday.”
Speaking of trivial entertainment, I must confess to watching (and loving) WWF wrestling. The Ultimate Warrior, who died 26 times, was my favorite ... for some reason.
Whenever I start feeling bad about myself for my entertainment tastes, I just try to remember that, at one time, “The Dukes of Hazzard” was on at 8 p.m. on Friday nights because that’s precisely what America wanted to watch — prime time. (That TV show lost almost as many Dodge Chargers as wrestling lost Ultimate Warrior actors.)
At least I can say I was never into the lower-functioning kids’ delight: pogs and slammers (the equivalents of the 1930s toys, rocks and sticks — toys for which our grandparents were thankful). As for adolescent-karate turtles, OK, I can see their allure; but I’ll never understand the fascination with pogs.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0062 : 526
Children of Men (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 96
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Clive Owen / Michael Caine / Julianne Moore
109 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language, some drug use and brief nudity)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 27, 2007
In celebration of today’s DVD release of “Children of Men,” I wanted to post this review for those who have not yet seen this film, because they should.
Though it is a rare thing, every once in a while a movie will contain a combination of elements that make it completely consuming to its viewers. “Children of Men” is one of those treasures, and it is excellent.
“Fargo” (1996), “Sling Blade” (1996), “Blood Simple” (1984), “The Godfather” (1972) and more recently, “The Departed” (2006) are similar examples of this phenomenon, just to name a few. Each of these is extremely entertaining and very well done.
And even though I love the popcorn movies, like “Jurassic Park” (which is remarkable in its own ways), those types of movies lack something that these films listed above have.
If I were to try to pinpoint a few of these mysterious conditions, I would venture to describe them as compelling, fictitious narratives illustrated with convincing realism. This is why films like “Children of Men” are so involving.
The year is 2027 (five years after “Soylent Green’s” setting) and the world is without hope. Inexplicably, the human race is no longer able to procreate. Mankind is dwindling toward extinction. A dark era has fallen upon humanity. The entire earth is discouraged. A popular product called “Quietus” enables peaceful suicides for those who wish to expedite the inevitable.
Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is among the hopeless, but he used to a believer, a fighter, an idealist. The character of Theo is reminiscent of Bogart’s apathetic Rick character in “Casablanca” (1942). Both heroes follow the same path: the old flame shows up and sets their battling spirits ablaze, once again. “Of all the gin joints ... ” For Rick it was Ilsa, but for Theo, it’s Julian (Julianne Moore), the leader of a rebel group.
These rebels have a valuable secret: a pregnant woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey). The rebels kidnap and commission Theo to help Kee and her unborn baby get to safety with a mysterious organization called “The Human Project.” The film follows these two travelers’ perilous, exhilarating journey in the form of one big chase scene, and it reveals Theo’s change of heart as Kee’s baby ignites within him a glimmer of hope.
No, I didn’t just tell you the whole movie. Well, OK, maybe I did, but that was merely the premise; the trailers reveal as much. The core of this film is found in its subtext. There is more to this film for its viewers to ponder after the credits roll. Blatant points are made about racism, immigration issues, suicide and humanity.
The filmmaking is masterful. A bleak, dismal, gloomy future is tangible, insomuch that its sadness seeps into the viewer, a small price to pay for such atmospheric cinema. The film’s photography is predominately blues and grays. This fictitious, crumbled England resembles post-war Italy in its neorealistic films of the 1940s, reminiscent of the works of Rossellini, De Sica and Visconti.
“Children of Men” will be noted for its nearly miraculous, long, unbroken shots that enhance its suspense. (Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki was hideously robbed at this year’s Academy Awards by “Pan’s Labyrinth,” another fine film that was surely beautiful but still no match for this “baby.”)
Speaking of one instance, in particular, there is an unusual “car chase” scene, unlike any I can remember, that is easily among the best sequences ever shot in the history of cinema. Easily.
“Children of Men” is, without a doubt, a masterpiece and a definite must-see. Rent it today; you won’t regret it.
X Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0050 : 597
Soylent Green (1973)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 61
Directed by Richard Fleischer
Charlton Heston / Edward G. Robinson / Leigh Taylor-Young
97 min. Science Fiction / Thriller
MPAA: PG (but I might suggest PG-13, instead)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 27, 2007
You cannot profess to be a true science fiction film lover until you’ve seen “Soylent Green” (1973). And I mean that.
“Soylent Green” has a devious secret, much like “The Sixth Sense” (1999), “Boys Don’t Cry“ (1999) and “The Usual Suspects” (1995). Each of these four movies has something in common: Once you know the twist, the film almost isn’t worth watching a second time.
The year is 2022 and the Earth is grotesquely overpopulated. New York City’s population, alone, is 40 million. Pollution and the greenhouse effect have turned the planet into a miserable habitat, almost completely barren of plants and animals.
Food is no longer a luxury; it’s a problem. But the Soylent Company produces foodstuff wafers made from high-energy plankton: Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and everyone’s favorite, Soylent Green.
Tuesdays are “Soylent Green Day” in the street markets but only while supplies last. As soon as Soylent Green runs out, riots erupt. But the NYPD has ways of dealing with the countless rioters: Garbage-truck-like vehicles called “scoops” come along and fill their buckets with people, scooping them off the streets.
Truly, this sequence has to be one of the most memorable moments in film.
“Soylent Green” delivers its dread through an investigation. A New York policeman named Thorn (Charlton Heston) is investigating the murder of one of the rich, higher-ups in the Soylent Company. Thorn’s investigation leads him (and us) to unsavory revelations that neither he nor we will forget.
The first 45 minutes of the movie slowly drag along, but the bizarreness that follows is worth the lull. The movie is sexist (in-house prostitutes are called “female furniture”) and anti-government. Ah, the ‘70s.
“Soylent Green” was also Edward G. Robinson’s final performance, and a fine one it is.
My eccentric Uncle Butch recommended that I watch “Soylent Green,” years ago. Sadly, he worked for a nuclear power plant where real-life “scoops” came for him once after he was exposed to nuclear radiation. “They” came in the night wearing their bright yellow hazmat suits, dragged him from bed, buried his clothes, scrubbed him down and isolated him for quite a while — just like in the movies.
Uncle Butch never was the same after that. He would always say the words “it’s a” after he laughed. But I still thought he was cool ... he had three thumbs.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0030 : 390
Zodiac (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 69
Directed by David Fincher
Jake Gyllenhaal / Robert Downey Jr. / Mark Ruffalo
158 min. Crime / Thriller
MPAA: R (for some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 26, 2007
“Zodiac” begins as the American-movie masterpiece that it was hyped-up to be. But then, after about the first hour, “Zodiac” meanders and fumbles and drags to its arguably inconclusive end — 98 minutes later.
There’s an unfortunate trend in the movies these days. Filmmakers will choose a historical occurrence that’s almost worthy to film but not quite: Either the true story had no real resolution, or it wasn’t quite remarkable enough to make a movie about in the first place.
“Catch a Fire” (2006) is just one example of the latter: a story that had potential but wasn’t quite remarkable enough to immortalize on film. “Zodiac,” on the other hand, loses its steam because the writers ran out of conclusive information from the real-life tale. Again, this could be argued, but it’s no secret (so, this is not a spoiler) that the Zodiac killer was never officially captured.
Even so, “Zodiac” was a very well made film. What it lacked in story satisfaction, it made up for with the performances of all involved, the filmmakers — as well as the actors.
Based on actual case files, “Zodiac” begins on the fourth of July, 1969, in Vallejo, Calif. A couple on a lovers’ lane encounter unpleasant brutality while in their car. Four weeks later, in San Francisco, a letter to the editor is brought to Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), the San Francisco Chronicle’s Crime Beat writer.
The letter is a cipher, a secret method of writing in which letters are substituted by symbols. The author claims responsibility for the July 4 killing. This begins the mad reign of the serial killer called The Zodiac.
But really, this movie isn’t about the Zodiac killer as much as it’s about obsession.
The film’s tagline is excellent: “There’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer.” Paul Avery (Crime Beat writer), homicide detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), the Chronicle’s cartoonist and puzzle lover, all become preoccupied with solving the Zodiac case, especially Graysmith.
This film is about how fierce determination can easily cross over into obsession. Because the movie is about its characters (and not a conclusively packaged plot), it is fairly entertaining. It might have been better if the movie weren’t so lengthy. But this investigation spanned years, and perhaps the filmmakers were trying to make the viewer feel a sense of what it was like to toil with the same question for so long: Who is the Zodiac?
The film’s R rating is primarily a result of some graphic killings. I’m fairly desensitized to such images of violence (for better or for worse), but one particular violent act that takes place on a lakeshore made me wince.
I admit that I’m oftentimes too hard on the films I review. Perhaps that’s the case with “Zodiac.” But the movie’s photography is beautiful. The soundtrack evokes the time period quite well, primarily the ‘70s. And the movie has suspense, to be sure.
I should tell you, “Zodiac” is based on the real Robert Graysmith’s book about his compulsive search for the Zodiac. With Graysmith’s conclusion, the filmmakers have made a noble attempt at closure and resolution for the film’s ending that will appease many. It just didn’t appease me; and if the Zodiac killer shows up at my door, someday — I’m gonna be ticked.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0061 : 557
This American Life
I've always loved the PRI show This American Life
with Ira Glass. The interesting biographical snapshots of ordinary people—who are sometimes not so ordinary—just fascinates me to no end. Now This American Life has moved online, as covered by Wired magazine's Monkey Bytes blog:
Just in case you’re one of the probably millions of NPR lovers who don’t have Showtime, the first episode of This American Life is now available via the Showtime website.
A Motley Vision points out that
one upcoming episode will feature a Mormon painter and a bearded Utahn.
The New Republic also covers it.
You can catch
Showtime's webisodes
over here. You'll also catch a preview of the bearded post-Marxist student
here (you'll have to find and click on "True Stories From Everyday People").
Amazing Grace (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 77
Directed by Michael Apted
Ioan Gruffudd / Albert Finney / Benedict Cumberbatch
111 min. Drama
MPAA: PG (for thematic material involving slavery, and some mild language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 23, 2007
Many film scholars argue that in 1975, "Jaws" was the first release that began the big, summer blockbuster tradition of flashy, high-budget movie excitement. And I love every bit of it, from "Independence Day" to "Armageddon." They’re like Burger King to me … more on that later.
But unfortunately, since many American moviegoers are conditioned to look for the sensational, I fear that the majority will pass up the beautiful "Amazing Grace," an overlooked treasure of modern cinema.
"Amazing Grace" has a story to tell, a real story, a true story. I will state upfront that the movie is almost entirely dialogue, but the writing is clever and pleasing. One must be attentive and listen closely. (I know that's a tall order for "Saw III" fans.)
It’s the late 18th century and Great Britain has a thriving business in the slave trade industry. Nightmarish slave ships transport hundreds of people (most of whom die) from Africa to the plantations in Jamaica. The methods for shipping these doomed individuals are described in unthinkable terms but never depicted onscreen.
But the slaves have an emerging champion who is tireless, William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd).
Now, I digress here to recognize that Ioan Gruffudd plays Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) in the not-so “Fantastic Four” (2005), a movie that approaches the hideousness of “Master of Disguise” (2002). Two movies that prove that actors sometimes engage in far worse things than prostitution to become stars.
It turns out that Gruffudd can act after all — given the right material — and has a formidable screen presence. He performs with, and is inevitably, understandably outshone by Albert Finney, but not by much.
Sting (the musician, not the wrestler) once said that you can tell a good song if you can sing it while accompanied by one instrument — and it still “works.” Well, I might adjust that to suggest that you can tell good scriptwriting if it could be performed as a stage play — and it still “works.”
“Amazing Grace” would be as excellent a play as it is a movie. This should tell the reader that “Amazing Grace” is good because of its writing, its casting, its acting, its sets, its costumes and its story. You don’t see that everyday, not even in the movies.
William Wilberforce is a “mover-and-a-shaker,” as they say, in the political arena. He is a passionate, fiery, political activist who is commissioned by a grass-roots team of abolitionists to lead the battle to do away with slavery through Parliament.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like Social Studies class. Yes, it sounds boring. But what makes the movie excellent is the emotion that is connected with its story. If you follow along, it’s impossible not to be stirred from within.
There are other magical touches, such as a cute romance and the story behind the song, “Amazing Grace,” but I’ll let Al Finney give you the experience for himself.
Watching “Amazing Grace” is like going to your health-nut friends’ house for dinner: That steamed carrot stir-fry with wheat-germ sauce isn’t nearly as appealing as the Burger King you passed on the way to their house, but after you eat it, you feel good, like you’ve done something nice for yourself.
“Amazing Grace” is wholesome in the same way.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent / theater option (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0060 : 544
Inter-denominational film festivals
Project 168 is screening its short films this weekend. Filmmakers are assigned a Bible verse, then they have one week to make a short film. It's a pretty interesting group of mostly Evangelical filmmakers. Ralph Winter (X-Men), Louis Friedman (LucasFilm), and other Christian filmmakers are involved as board trustees or judges.
Filmmakers have taken their shorts to other festivals, such as the Damah, another arena for faith-based filmmakers or spiritual films of any religion.
Skousen Films
Here's an unabashed post that borders on shameless self-promotion. While I claim no involvement 
in the creative process of any of the cinematic content on David Skousen's new website, some of his work feels like my own. That's because Skousen is a lifelong friend, who I've worked much with over the years. (Someday we'll put those darn "freak out" cartoons online.)
Most of our inane collaborations, starting as teens, have involved explosions in one form or another, and arguably, this kind of stoicism is one of Skousen's stronger points. But I think he's starting to bring together other defining elements that fine a filmmaker makes.
Since I have made every effort to be objective and critical of anyone else I've covered on this site, I won't posture to paint the brightest picture of Skousen. His work does have a certain forced emotional quality that I sometimes find hard to stomach. But then, I've always been hypercritical of emotionally-driven content in anything cinematic, and admittedly I have my own can of worms. I mean, for heaven's sake, I cried when Spock died in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan—and in front of all my fellow Church-going peers at that who watched it with me at a young age. (How old was I? Seems I've conveniently forgotten.) So I'm kind of hit and miss on the sappy sponge factor.
All that said, I've always seen him an incredibly bright star who's star just hasn't quite risen yet. If you need proof of the potential, looks no further:
If you go to his website, you'll see other material worth a viewing, though I think this particular piece is probably his most interesting.
Cronos (1993)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 65
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Federico Luppi / Ron Perlman / Tamara Shanath
94 min. Drama / Horror
MPAA: R (for horror, violence and for language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 21, 2007
“Cronos” is noteworthy because of its original spin on vampires and is an effective (though probably unintentional) metaphor for the downward spiral of drug addiction.
“Cronos” was written and directed by the capable hands of Guillermo del Toro, who is perhaps better known for last year’s masterful “Pan’s Labyrinth.”
A 16th-century alchemist/watchmaker constructs a bio-mechanical beetle called “the Cronos device.” This golden scarab is designed to grant its user significantly extended life, if not immortality.
This device is most intriguing. Only we, the viewers, are able to see the bug’s inner workings. It contains spinning gears of brass and a peculiar inhabitant: a grotesque, pulsating, bloody, bug-like larva.
I will not reveal the unsettling manner in which the Cronos interacts with its user; this uncomfortable oddity is one of the movie’s pleasures.
Four-hundred years later, when the alchemist is mortally wounded by architectural ineptitude, his possessions are sold. A kind grandfather and shopkeeper, Jesus Gris (Federico Luppi), eventually has the alchemist’s archangel statue for sale in his store.
Gris and his quiet granddaughter, Aurora (Tamara Shanath), discover that the statue hides the Cronos device within it. Soon, Gris is addicted to the Cronos’ seemingly symbiotic wonders and its horrors.
The evil is twofold. A disturbed old man named Dieter de la Guardia (Claudio Brook) and his bizarro-Will-Ferrell-look-alike nephew, Angel (Ron Perlman), seek the Cronos device with ferocity. Their determination to possess it gets ugly.
Besides an inconvenient craving for blood, Cronos users eventually take on a periwinkle skin color that’s reminiscent of “Faker” from the “He-Man” toys — minus the orange hair. (Here’s a tip: If you want to be a “faker” and pass yourself off as some white guy, you can’t have blue skin.)
Vampires are typically pitiful beings, but never have I seen a movie that made me feel as much compassion as I did for Gris.
“Cronos” is sufficiently weird and creepy to merit a viewing, even if you have an aversion to subtitles. Its macabre plot approaches dark comedy but is mostly ghoulish, gruesome and grim.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0059 : 339
300 (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 68
Directed by Zack Snyder
Gerard Butler / Lena Headey / Rodrigo Santoro
117 min. Action / War
MPAA: R (for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 20, 2007
My film history class thinks "300" is nothing less than phenomenal. The voters on the Internet Movie Database currently have "300" ranked 202 out of the top 250 movies. Maybe 10,000 movie fans can't be wrong, but something about these 300 Spartans is amiss.
That something is this: The movie doesn't ever go anywhere … literally. The battles take place in one spot. Moreover, the same fatal blows and administration of death occur over and over again. Really, it's monotonous. (Yes, we're all familiar with CGI, and we're all impressed.)
Moreover, the movie reduces to the baseness of a Balinese cockfight (although Clifford Geertz would have probably fought to the death over such an assertion).
It's this simple: Remember "Fight Club" (1999)? Well, "300" is basically "Fight Club," but it's set back in 480 B.C. The story isn’t the same, of course, but both movies are as macho as Randy Savage snappin’ into a Slim Jim. “Oh, yeah.” (Incidentally, it should be known: I believe Savage stole that catchphrase from Kool-aid man.)
“Three-hundred” is adapted from Frank Miller's graphic novel (don’t even say “a glorified comic book”), which illustrates the battle at Thermopylae where 300 Spartans warred against a numerous host of Persian assailants.
King Leonidas of Sparta (Gerard Butler) receives a threatening request from King Xerxes of Persia (Rodrigo Santoro). (King Xerxes, by the way, might remind you of an upsetting blend between Mr. T and Rhu Paul.)
After kicking Xerxes’ messenger into “the hole” that Glen Phillips sings about on “Unlucky 7,” Leonidas consults some yucky monks on a mountain top, who then consult a scandalous oracle, who then indicates that Sparta should not go to war.
Without having the oracle’s blessing for war, and therefore, the support of Sparta’s political powers that be, the king takes 300 of his best men to “guard” him at this strategically special spot near the sea. From this point on, the Persians bring bigger and better onslaughts of fighting freaks and battling beasts to challenge the mighty 300.
“Three-hundred” isn’t a man’s movie as much as it is a 14-year-old’s movie. It has plenty of violence, action, blood, gore, nudity, sexual situations and some misplaced electric guitars on the soundtrack. What more could a pre-pubescent voyeur wish to view?
Just as a lot of people like "Fight Club," many like "300," too. The former is superior to the latter, however. Both movies have strong beginnings and lose stamina as they progress.
Though “300” has some entertaining scenes, which I could surely appreciate, I cannot whole-heartedly recommend it because the nudity and sexuality were exploitative and unnecessary. (But when are such things necessary?)
A movie with this much testosterone could pull a pre-pubescent teen through puberty in about 117 minutes … If only "300" were released back when I was in Mr. Homer's fifth-grade swimming class: Then that wooly mammoth, Cro-Magnon kid named Bruce wouldn't have made me feel so self-conscious in the locker room.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0058 : 493
Breach (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 72
Directed by Billy Ray
Chris Cooper / Ryan Phillippe / Laura Linney
110 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence, sexual content and language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 19, 2007
A good thriller makes its audience care about its protagonist(s). But “Breach” goes further: It makes you have compassion for its antagonist, too.
Based on a true story, “Breach” tells the story of what is said to be “the greatest security breach in U.S. history.” Surprisingly, the movie is intriguing and engaging without any car chases or shoot-outs. The filmmakers rely on actual suspense rather than action. Wonders abound.
“Breach” is quite good, almost excellent, primarily because of one actor’s performance: Chris Cooper. You’ll remember him as the coal-mining father from “October Sky” (1999). Cooper steals the show (and then runs it) as Robert Hanssen, an intimidator who likes to be called “Sir” or “Boss.” Either works for him.
Hanssen is exceptionally intelligent, a devout Catholic, a loving husband, a good grandpa and the former head of the FBI’s Soviet Analytical Unit. And he’s a sexual deviant. (Some of us have a weakness for marshmallow Peeps, others have weirder vices, but none of us is perfect.)
FBI agent Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney) assigns an ambitious, prospective agent named Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) to be Hanssen’s clerk (a.k.a. spy) to collect information about the veteran’s unsavory habits. It’s this cat-and-mouse spying game that produces the suspense.
I’ve just described what the movie is about without revealing what it’s about. I do not spoil movies (though I do like marshmallow Peeps).
While watching “Breach,” it’s fascinating to try to discern whether Hanssen knows O’Neill’s true purpose. We know that the rookie is naive and inexperienced, but he’s also capable and talented. Does Hanssen know all of that, too?
The key to “Breach” is Chris Cooper’s development of the Hanssen character. Everything he says and does is convincing. We can tell that he’s a good man, but something is amiss.
At one point in the film, we viewers are provoked to ask an inevitable “Why?” question. The answer is given to us, but with subtlety. Be sure you don’t miss it.
Again, I won’t spoil anything, so read on unafraid: At the end of the movie, we grow concerned that the filmmakers don’t know what to do for an ending. But then we’re delightfully surprised when “Breach” concludes on the right note. The very last scene rings true, and we believe it.
I walked out of the theater impressed, and with a smile of satisfaction. The only thing I was missing was marshmallow Peeps.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: Don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0057 : 385
A Welcome to Rhapsidiom's New In-house Movie Reviewer
Rhapsidiom.com gives a warm welcome to its newest member, Jason Pyles, our very own in-house movie reviewer. Jason's movie reviews will consist of current releases as well as reviews of older films—"retro reviews" as he likes to call them—revisiting films from the past.
Thirty-something Jason hails from West Virginia. He was baptized at the age of 19 after walking into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on his own accord, merely, as he puts it, "looking for God." One year later he was out-and-about as a fully active member, serving in the Arizona Tucson Mission. In 2004, he married his dream girl, Natalie, in the Salt Lake temple. Jason currently resides in Utah. (He moved there to promote his music.) He is a singer/ songwriter with two solo CDs. Jason also plays piano in the Dave Eaton band—listen for his plunking on Brief Relief, a particular favorite of mine. (Dave taught Jason the Gospel in WV.)
Jason's passion is movies. He is a student of film—pursuing a career in journalism, with an emphasis in film criticism. (Jason's hero is Roger Ebert.) He currently writes movie reviews for The College Times, at Utah Valley State College, and we're excited to add his reviews to our website.
So welcome to Jason!
Revisiting the LDS Film Festival
New offerings from the LDS Film Festival for Utah residents:
------------------------------------------------------
FESTIVAL FILMS NOW ON COMCAST ON DEMAND
------------------------------------------------------
If you live in Utah and have Comcast Cable TV, you can watch many of the short films from this year's festival on Comcast On Demand. A selection of 24-hour marathon films and short films are available for FREE Viewing. Just go to Comcast On Demand, select "Local Programming," and click on the "LDS Film Festival" link.
The festival also set record attendance this year, at 4,800 visitors.
"The festival grows every year in quality and attendance. We couldn't be more thrilled," sums up festival founder and director Christian Vuissa...
"We are already seeing a lot of material for our 2008 festival."
Will you be involved next year?
