Maybe it's okay to watch a lot of bad movies. I think it helps you to recognize the really good ones. Flags of our Fathers is one of the good ones. I've always been fascinated by war movies, so I was looking forward to seeing this one. This isn't just a war movie, but also an exploration of that famous photo and what the word "hero" can mean.
Why is this a good movie? I'll give you three examples. There are more, but these are the ones that stood out for me. First, when the Marines first land on the island, it all seems quiet. They march up the beach and take their positions. They start to move inland and the camera shot switches to the view out of a fox hole. The muzzle of a gun is aimed out the fox hole at the approaching soldiers. The shooting doesn't start right away. Instead, the shots cut back and forth between the soldiers point of view as they move forward and the fox hole's. I had to close my eyes a few times because I just couldn't watch and wait for those soldiers to get shot. You instantly feel a little of the fear they they did as they waited for the bullets to fly.
The second example is the many moments in the movie that the camera doesn't show you everything. When Doc goes to view Iggy's body and when the corpsman dies of the bullet wound to his neck, the camera doesn't show you everything. We don't see what made the other soldier sick when he saw Iggy's body. We just see Doc's blank stare. When the corpsman dies, we don't see the blood spurt out of his neck as he gives his final breath. Instead, we see his hand drop listlessly to the black sand. Sometimes it's what you don't show that can make a scene more powerful. You are left to imagine what is inferred.
And finally as the end credits play, there is a series of photos. Many are from the battle, but you also get to see a picture of some of the men portrayed in the film. If you pay close attention, many of the combat photos shown are recreated in the movie (e.g. the gun in the sand, Doc walking the man with the head wound). I thought that it was an incredible way to remind us that this movie is about real people, who fought in a real situation. Sometimes it is easy to forget that after the credits roll.
It's hard to believe that this movie was rated PG-13. The first time that Johnny Blaze transformed into the Ghost Rider, you could see his skin burning off. There were other scenes that made me question the rating. But then again, maybe I am old. My son didn't seem to mind any of it. As a matter of fact he liked the movie. I didn't. There were two things that bothered me the most about the movie. I thought the whole story about the village of San Ven...whatever, was confusing. If everyone was so evil in the town, why not send them to hell? That's where they ended up anyway. I also didn't like how the Ghost Rider was developed. Why bother having an older Ghost Rider in the story if he doesn't show the next Ghost Rider how to use his powers? I think it would have been a much better movie if the final battle had been more interesting. Why not have all the baddies meet up with the Ghost Riders, past and present? Make it a battle royal instead of having the Ghost Rider send them one by one to hell. The final scene in which Johnny Blaze refuses to hand over his powers was great, but as action movies go, this one was rather dull.
Three strikes and you're out in baseball. I think Shrek 3 is the third strike for whoever produced the trilogy. Hopefully, they won't make any more. They probably will though. I'm sure they made enough money to think that people liked it enough for a forth installment. Heck, I put down my money. I do wish I could get it back.
Why was Shrek 3 so bad? Here's a quick example. The king dies...I mean croaks. He does it several times. Once or twice seeming like he's dead, but then he comes back to life, that's kinda funny. Seeming to "croak" three or four times with the (now) annoying Donkey and Puss and Boots making stupid comments, that's too much. They carried the scene too far. Then, during the king's funeral, "Live and Let Die" by Wings plays on the soundtrack. It was totally inappropriate. The song is about growing cynical (my interpretation of it), so how does that fit in with a funeral scene? You should be bitter and angry now that he's dead? You don't get that at a lot of funerals.
This movie just completely abused the music. One of the best things about the first movie was the soundtrack. The scene where Shrek wrestles the king's army to "Bad Reputation" or when the Proclaimers "I'm on My Way" plays along as they are walking, those were fabulous uses of the soundtrack. A bad cover of "Barracuda" playing along while the women kick booty, just din't work for me. Mainly because the cover was soooooo bad. I mean really, just pay the extra few bucks and get the original.
I won't even go into how stupid the story was. Why in the world would you ever include dinner theater in this movie and then turn dinner theater into a venue for public execution like a gladiator match? Seriously, that was just preposterous. Again, the film went too far. Maybe that was there plan. I can hear it now. "Okay, people, we've made two of these before. Now, let's make a third and just add more of everything. Add more jokes until they stop laughing. Add more stupid plot lines until they don't know what's going on. Heck, they'll still give us their money, because more is better."
Better than Pirates 2, not as good as Pirates 1. Chow Yun Fat wasn't in the movie enough. Thankfully, there was more Johnny Depp/Captain Jack Sparrow in this movie. There was some very fine film making to be seen during Pirates 3. The scene with the multiple Jack Sparrow's was fantastic. It was an interesting exercise in experimental film making, done right inside a Hollywood movie. You don't see that everyday. The story was a little easier to understand than the one in Pirates 2. The problem was, I knew what was going on, but had no idea why. Why was there a Pirates brotherhood? A pirate king? Was that necessary?
If you haven't seen Pirates 3 yet and are going to go, be sure to stay through the credits. There is a scene at the very end after they finish rolling. I missed it. I really, really don't like it when they do that. But, I've been told that it's worth waiting for since it deals the Will and Elizabeth love story.
Why did it rain frogs? And, why did everyone swear so much?
I think I need to watch Magnolia again. If I can spare an extra three hours. In hindsight, it would have been wise to read at least something about this movie before watching it. I didn't know much about the movie, other than Tom Cruise was in it (I really don't like Tom Cruise). I did expect that it would be an ordinary narrative film. When each of the characters started singing along with the soundtrack, I knew strange things were a foot. The frogs did me in though. It was about midnight when it began raining frogs, so it is entirely possible that I wasn't in the proper state of mind for frogs to be busting out windows. But still, why frogs? Poor things.
I've done some reading on Magnolia and have talked to two of my co-workers about it. Interestingly, my female co-worker and I were not offended by Frank and the "Seduce and Destroy" self-help parody. Somehow it just seemed appropriate for the person playing the character. We were both bothered by Lily and the waifish Claudia. You can probably guess that we have an aversion for weak female characters.
As for my other co-worker, he and I differed on our interpretation of the movie. My take on the theme of the movie was that fate was a strong influence in many of the character's lives. He thought that choice and the choices that people make in the past, present and future, was a strong theme in the movie. After listening to his explanation for why he thought that, I would agree slightly. There we also some reviews and other comments on the movie that alluded to his interpretation. A second viewing would be very helpful in actually figuring out if he was making a valid point and where exactly that theme is present in the film.
I can't say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I think I was more annoyed, but not in a bad way. It's like a splinter. It's under my skin, but not painful. It's just there, lingering, right below the surface.
There was a moment, near the end of Mad Hot Ballroom where I wondered if the team that was getting so much screen time was actually going to win. That moment got me thinking about a few other things, such as:
There's a lot to like about this documentary. It was well made and did a good job of trying to capture the practices and performances. I think the film technique of directly interviewing the adults but using the "fly on the wall" technique for the kids was interesting. In a way, by having the kids casually talk to one another in front of the camera, you were given the impression that they were just being themselves and we were lucky just to be there for that particular moment. However, it hardly seemed likely that any of the kids would discuss the things they did just casually in front of a camera without some prompting. It was important to have those moments in the film, since it really was about how the program affects the kids in it. But it would be interesting to know more about how the film makers planned out the whole thing.