RSS

the bucket list: #1 do not watch the bucket list.

i don’t really like movies that blatantly manipulate your feelings, that play on your emotions so obviously, or set out to turn you from a strong man into a weeping mess on the sofa, but for one reason or another, i’d had quite an emotional weekend so when the good lady wife suggested we watch ‘the bucket list’, i was quite happy to sit through it, fully aware that it would probably destroy me!
now the director, rob reiner, has done some wonderful movies. ‘stand by me’ being my favourite – although others may choose ‘a few good men’ or ‘this is spinal tap’. but his last 10 or so movies haven’t really done anything to light up the movie world.
nicholson and freeman do well in their roles but they aren’t amazing. nicholson plays a filthy rich hospital exec who finds himself sharing a room with freeman, a working class family man. both are having treatment for terminal cancer. their time in hospital together is quite moving as they are like chalk and cheese – yet they have this bond, this sudden realisation that there is an urgency to the things they wish they had accomplished in their lives. the bucket list of things they see as must do’s – skydiving, kissing the most beautiful girl in the world, climbing the himalayas, seeing the pyramids, getting a tattoo, etc.
it’s obvious to any viewer that they didn’t splash out on the settings as their journey reminded me of those photos you see taken in front of billboards to make it look as if you were at the location. it was blatantly clear they were in front of a green screen of egypt, then off they went to get changed to return to a green screen of the taj mahal etc. while decidedly average, it was rather funny to watch.
there was also lots of material that could have been scripted here for serious discussion about life and death, faith and religion, the love of a family and the effect of loneliness. alas all these are just touched on and left me wanting more from these two acting powerhouses.
as i said, if you like to be spoonfed sentimentality, this may very well be for you. for those of us whose cinematic taste buds enjoy character development, authentic conversations and emotions, a believability to the characters and a little less [for want of a better word] mush, i warn you - if the bucket list catches you at the wrong time – you will leak profusely! so steer clear.
as for morgan and nicholson – they shouldn’t be wasting their time on stuff like this, there must be better scripts and movies for them to sign get involved in.

one final thing that did annoy me though – and it annoyed me big time.
how can your character narrate the story when your character is no longer living?

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

black swan review

darren aranofsky is a director who gives us some unforgettable movies, but the only one i have ever watched is underappreciated ‘the fountain’ which is a true thing of beauty [if a little bit of a mind melter]. his latest offering, black swan, is a strange yet enthralling thing of beauty. i’ve heard it called a thriller with elements of horror, but i disagree. this is for all intents and purposes a horror movie about insanity, obsession and the pursuit of one person’s own perfection, and it is at times truly terrifying. yet while terrifying, aranofsky has given us an incredibly well told, deeply touching portrait of natalie portman’s character, and she is fully deserving of any awards thrown at her for this role – it’s phenomenal.
portman is nina sayers, a ballerina who’s desperate to play the lead in her company's production of swan lake. she has mastered the aspect of the white swan, but being quite a fragile person she is struggling to find her inner black swan. with the combined oppressiveness of her overbearing mother, her barbaric director and fierce competitors, nina slowly descends into madness.
did i mention portman is phenomenal?...
you feel uneasy watching black swan and it has you on edge the whole time. it’s an incredible piece of work. like i say, this is a horror story and by the final third of the movie this aspect really starts to kick in. it’s a collection of psychological torture and physical horror. it's *very* creepy, and some of what you see will stay with you for days!
with black swan aronofsky has shown us that he can deliver an unforgettable experience.
i will not be watching it again, and i don't think it will be for everyone [wifey thinks it was absolutely awful!] but i'm glad i saw it, or rather - experienced it.
which brings me to my easter message!!
what of perfection? we are imperfect beings, we cannot be perfect no matter what we do or how hard we strive for it. but only through faith in the very real loving sacrifice of christ on the cross are we *all* washed clean of our wrongdoings and gain our rightful place in heaven with our creator. perfect!
-------------------------
you were saved by faith in god, who treats us much better than we deserve. this is god's gift to you, and not anything you have done on your own. it isn't something you have earned, so there is nothing you can brag about. god planned for us to do good things and to live as he has always wanted us to live. that's why he sent christ to make us what we are.

ephesians 2v8-10

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

another misleading movie poster

movie posters are a funny thing. who decides what it should look like? i sometimes wonder if the person designing the poster has in fact seen the movie – or even the trailer! ‘slumdog millionaire’ being the most obvious of late. ‘black snake moan’ is another, but i think this time it was deliberate and clever.
even if you haven't seen black snake moan [and you probably haven’t] you've no doubt seen the film's poster somewhere. it's a very provocative image of a tall black man holding a chain at the end of which is a young white woman, wearing what can only be described as ‘limited attire’. it looks like an exploitation flick. But it isn’t, oh no! surprisingly what you find is a rather old-fashioned tale of  redemption - albeit wrapped up in a somewhat steamy atmosphere.
black snake moan is at heart a tale of about two broken people with gaping holes in their lives, who find a connection. rae [ricci] is engaged to ronnie [timberlake]. he’s off on a tour of duty, and as soon as he has gone rae is in agony suffering from an itch which she can't help scratching - if you get my drift. this leads to her being found unconscious at the side of the road by mace windu, i mean lazarus. a religious man whose wife has recently abandoned him for his brother.
he takes her home and aims to cure her of her “sickness”. he has an interesting approach though - shackling her to his radiator with just enough slack to get around the house. which she obviously loves [not].
jackson’s roles usually rely on his screen presence but here his performance is truly authentic – you feel he really is a man who feels life is letting him down, a real bluesman. rae and lazarus are both performances that keep you interested in their story and where this relationship [for want of a better word] will go.
black snake moan is a strange film which has moments of brilliance, and moments that are not so brilliant. and for a movie that plays to it’s imagery so much – the chain being relevant to both rae and lazarus - it’s the fantastic blues soundtrack that stays with you long after the movie has finished.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

does evil come from god?

recently i got into a discussion about “what is or isn’t part of god’s ultimate plan” and how/if disasters and death play a part in that. my stance is that i do not believe that everything bad that happens is evil – or the devil. natural disasters are not inherently evil, but they are disastrous, and for the most part natural. it is us humans who see that as evil. however death and disease are in this world because of sin, because of evil. evil is not itself a created thing though, evil is purely the absence of good. and so too darkness is not a thing, it is purely the absence of light.
which brings me to a particularly interesting verse from the bible which came up and i didn’t feel it was appropriate at the time to take up the whole evening discussing, but decided it was better to post about it here for interest. [and possibly discussion, who knows].
the verse was as follows, from isaiah, ch45 v7:
i form the light, and create darkness: i make peace, and create evil: i the lord do all these things. [kjv]
now, i have two problems with this translation.
first is that i don’t read the kjv as i find most of the language used within it’s pages alien to me. i am not living 500 years ago and do not speak like that, and if you came across someone at the shops who was speaking like that you’d think they were a little odd – so i have no plans to steep myself in that specific translation. i'd rather  one that is real and relevant to me – now – in the 21st century.
second, is that the translation is outdated, and i’ll come to that in a moment.

sceptics will say things like “if god created everything, then he must have created evil”, and use this to deny the reasons for his existence. but the bible is quite clear that god is not the author of evil and insists that he is incapable of doing so.
the lord is a mighty rock, and he never does wrong.  god can always be trusted to bring justice. [deut. ch32 v4, cev]

use of this translation is problematic and i lovingly call it the “bible-bashers version” with all it’s ‘thee’s and ‘thou’s, and since it uses olde english it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing today as when it was translated all those hundreds of years ago. having watched a recent documentary on tv celebrating the king james translation i realised that it was produced using a very limited number of medieval manuscripts. since then the bible has been translated from the earlier hebrew scripts from which most of our modern translations are drawn.
so what do our modern translations of the verse in isaiah say?
i form the light and create darkness, i bring prosperity and create disaster; i, the lord, do all these things. [niv]
i create the light and make the darkness. i send good times and bad times. i, the lord, am the one who does these things. [nlt]
i form light and create darkness, i make well-being and create calamity, i am the lord, who does all these things. [ESV]
i create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. i, the lord, do all of this. [cev]
i made the light and the darkness.  i bring peace, and i cause troubles. i, the lord, do all these things. [ncv]
immediately you realise there is no mention of the term 'evil'. this is because, rather interestingly, there is no hebrew word for ‘evil’, but the hebrew word in the old text simply means ‘bad’. to the hebrews it appears there was just good and bad. 
i guess what the verse is really saying is that god decrees good things and bad things, but it is our lack of love, trust and faith in him that brings evil into this world. 
just as a parent judges it’s child’s behaviour as good or bad and rewards or punishes accordingly, so it is that god rewards and punishes on the basis of good and bad behavior. the difference is – he is loving, good, just, fair and forgiving – unlike so many human parents.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS