Change Your Image
jkok-4
Reviews
Let the Lion Roar (2014)
Blame it on the devil
Normally a movie review would be an analysis of the plot and a critique of its technical achievements but documentaries such as this that have a strong agenda are more difficult to review in that sense because the technical aspects shouldn't have to bother you (at least that much) if the body of content is otherwise solid. But since everything has to start somewhere, I'll start with the technicalities.
This film gives out a terribly cheap impression. Ah, the fake beards, which I am not the first one to notice. The wardrobe looks like it is borrowed from the local theater. The props borrowed from your Comic-Con-attending cos-playing geek friend circulate from one actor to another. Ze acting wiz ze accents is ach zo terrible, with awkward lines and pauses of silences leaving the actors just swaying and staring. The score is heavy-handed, non- nuanced and annoying, consisting of pretty much a sequence of computer- assisted (Kontakt, EWQL, yay!) cheap orchestral instrumental songs without any theme or thought process behind it. The sound effects and visual effects are repetitive and dated. The few places where foley sound is actually used, they stand out and not in a good way.
The basic premise of this film is that the reformation gave us a perverted gospel. The reformers, being products of their time and culture, were anti- Semites and failed to break Christianity free from it's heritage of anti- semitism. The body of Christ is in a state of spiritual inferiority, deceived by Satan the devil himself, unless it recognizes that the modern state of Israel is a continuation of the old testament nation of Israel and that there is a corporate salvation plan (in contrast to the Christian individual salvation in having personal faith in Jesus) that applies to the Jews as if that had been the case in the Old Testament. The resulting low state of the church is the reason for the apparent decline of Christianity. All this is the result of a history study by the film's narrator Derek Frank, who was prompted to study these issues by an alleged revelation from God.
The film states for instance that since the effects of the reformation did not last in Geneva for more than 150 years, it was because of the anti- semitism. Perhaps we can discount the Apostles and God himself too on that very basis. The church is also rebuked for "gentilizing" names of biblical characters, such as Yeshua as Jesus. Towards the end Jonathan Bernis and Mark Biltz totally ignore how Jesus applies Isaiah 49:6 to himself in John 8:12.
Thus if you can not see how a totally secular nation, whose existence is not built upon the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is the light to the world, you are blinded by the devil and all of this is true because of some vision. Right.
The film so wants to be big, epic, grandiose, influential and the next big thing. The pompous tone itself is enough to discount the whole premise of the film. In that sense I am relieved, because a traditional documentary film with expert interviews and a transparent narrator would have communicated so much more believably a stance which I do not hold as biblical. Heresy is fine by me as long as the style of presentation is as laughable as this.
That being said, I sense that (unless I live in a bubble, which may very well be) if this had been the mega success the producers had hoped it to be, I would have heard of it earlier. Still, I am expecting this to surface in Finland at some point. It will probably be broadcasted via TV7, the Finnish TBN equivalent. At that point everybody and everybody's best friend will be raving about how insightful this sorry excuse of a theological study is, because in Finland every believer is expected to be an Israel nut. Thus my life as the (probably) only Calvinist in my home town is going to get harder.
American Sniper (2014)
Fine action, interesting war depiction, mediocre storytelling
I was disappointed at how much screen time was dedicated to the war and action scenes compared to character development, which to me would have been the very essence of this movie. How does the main character cope with the mental injuries he is left with after the war? Now it feels the movie starts at 20 minutes before it ends when Chris Kyle finally returns home from his last tour and there is no time to elaborate on how he got over his PTSD and his life back together again. One visit to a shrink seems to suffice, even in apparent full denial of his symptoms. This movie fails exactly where other biographical movies do; in too broad a portrayal of the life of its main character. It leaves a lot of loose ends and feels rushed. This movie might deserve its award nominations for its technical aspects but not for its story telling aspects.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Why could they not just make two movies as originally intended?
The problem with the LotR trilogy was the sheer size of the opus. There was so much material that a lot would have to be left out in order to streamline the movie and make it work. Usually it tends to work and it did in that context. Here, however, the book is considerably shorter and one would think it would be easier to adapt to a movie.
The original plan was to make two movies, correspondingly to the structure of the book. Now with the second movie the bad story telling decisions made early at the scripting phase are beginning to snowball out of control. There's just so much bloat and unnecessary alterations without which a much more compact and to-the-point end result could have been achieved. Not much is left to expect from the third movie anymore. Maybe somebody could do a fan edit after the third movie is released.
The brilliance of Tolkien's work is in the fact that he wrote what he wanted the way he wanted to. The error here is trying to force the story to a mold it originally refused to fit into. It makes not sense. The original story captivated millions of people. Why could a true to the original adaptation not do it?
Public Enemies (2009)
Lock him up already!
There's so many things why this movie falls flat for me. The Johnny Dillinger of this movie is not likable as a character. I didn't care about him. I wanted him to be locked up.
There is the love relationship, if you can call it that, between Billie Whatshernameagain and Johnny. The whole setup of it is weird; Johnny spots her in a restaurant and decides to own her, like "you're my girl now." At first she's like "okay", then she's like "I don't wanna, I don't even know u," but all it takes is a few stern words and some trivial "now you know me" -facts from Mr. Dillinger to convince her otherwise. And that's portrayed as their "love story." Suddenly Billie is willing to sacrifice everything for Johnny, just like that, for no good reason, really.
It all left me wondering what was wrong with her. Was she in denial? Does she not value herself as a woman? Well if that is the case, the real heroin of the story would develop along the story and finally discover the real state of things. Doesn't happen. Was she stupid? I don't want to watch a movie about stupid people. Marion Cotilliard's take on Billie was a deer-in-the-headlights-one. Awkward to watch.
The film lacks any emotional buildup. Billie and Johnny have a love relationship. I don't care. People die left and right. I don't care. Johnny is shot in the end. Good riddance. The sound track desperately tries to add drama to such moments, but the outcome is cheesy, because the character development does not support it. I do not feel the way about these characters as the score suggests.
As Johnny Dillinger is an annoying character, the other cast disappear in the gray masses because the sheer number of them. There's no emotional connections to any of them. Their screen time is short and I don't know enough of them to care. Even Christian Bale's character, his right hand, Dillinger's right hand and all the fed agents and gangsters are just pawns. Many of them die. Whatever.
Then there is the plot, or rather the carrying out of it. There is, for instance, the pointless character of J. Edgar Hoover who gets owned by some even more pointless politician in a pointless scene, where FBI's financing is discussed. J.E.H. basically states that the FBI rocks, the politician barks at him that it doesn't and the whole scene has no impact on the movie whatsoever. It could have been left out. Everything with J.E.H. could have been left out, it was meaningless. I could list more, but will not, because it won't all fit here.
Then there's the notorious shaky cam camera work. I did forget to be annoyed by it at some point, but at first it was noticeable and irritating.
All in all, a disappointment. A waste.
Lincoln (2012)
Boring. Unwatchable. Why, Spielberg?
I had high expectations on this movie regarding the fact that is was directed by Steven Spielberg, who I hold in high esteem as a film maker. We (6 people) rented this as a DVD and after the first 30 minutes two of us had already given up. At the one-hour-mark two people were watching anymore. Little later only one. I don't know how deep understanding one has to have of the history of the American Civil War to really appreciate this movie. None of us did. This movie missed an opportunity to educate us about it. The basic problem is the number of characters. No introductions, no nothing. Just shallow talking heads delivering difficult-to-understand lines of dialogue. Occasionally Daniel Day Lewis as tells a story or a joke. Occasionally Tommy Lee Jones says something. Why he says stuff and who he's even playing, is beyond me. I'm going to watch some documentary on Abe Lincoln instead.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Not a good adaptation
I have never had any problems accepting detours and storyline changes in novel adaptations when I can clearly see the point. The Half Blood Prince, however, seems to suffer from not deviating enough from the novels storytelling to work properly as a movie. Rather than being a whole and solid story which could in theory exist and stand on it's own as if the book had never been written, the movie felt to me like a chain of key events from the book vaguely linked together. I felt like too much attention was put into preserving the original story and keeping die hard fans as happy as possible, all at the expense of the story falling apart on the screen.
Many of the scenes and key elements included in the movie I felt were poorly justified, like the skirmish in the field and the burning of the Weasley house, both of which I thought were useless and contributed nothing to the story. Some key elements in the story were also not given the appropriate attention, like Draco's mission, the Half Blood Prince's potion book and Dumbledore's death, the last of which lacked the emotion I had hoped for. A funny exemplary note about the potion book was the realization of the Half Blood Prince's identity. Nobody in the movie, in any line or any other incentive, had implied that we should be wondering who the Half Blood Prince might be and then, at the end, there's Snape going "yes, Mr. Potter, it's me!" No real surprise there, though I should take into account that having read the book I already knew what was coming. Nonetheless, if it's a known fact, it should be emphasized even more, otherwise it will make no impact.
That said, I enjoyed what the movie was good for, which means that it was visually great and it's always fun to watch a book come to life in such a way that the Harry Potter series have. I've also enjoyed the story adaptations, though sadly only so far. This particular novel seems to have been too complex for a two-hour movie. This movie would have benefited from bigger and bolder decisions in screenplay writing. Of course, there's also the possibility to make the movie longer to be able to include everything, but I don't really see that as an option. I'm not that big a fan. Yawn.
All in all, I hope for the last two movies the screenwriters have the courage to deviate from the story where they see it's needed, rather than sticking to what the fans so badly want.