Before continuing with my commentary on John 6, I’ll take a quick break to give a review of a movie I watched earlier today: The King’s Speech. It’s an interesting movie since it covers a period of time that is within the history of people we know, be it parents or grandparents, or for the very young, great grandparents. It’s history that happened less than a century ago…and yet for all that, it’s stuff that we’re probably not all that familiar with.

Of course, a big part of that is being an American when this is dealing with the English royalty. For the most part, I don’t care all that much about British royalty, and there’s a reason we never read about it in school—because we’re too busy with American history. And in that regard, I’m quite sure that the British are the same toward us (how many of them know about Herber Hoover? But by asking that…um, how many Americans know anything about Hoover?).

Anyway, The King’s Speech is about Prince Albert who became King George VI when his brother abdicated the throne right before World War II. He had a speech impediment, but happened to become king right when radio addresses became necessary. If he had been born a century earlier, it wouldn’t have been much of a big deal; but now the English people needed to hear his voice.

The movie is about Albert/George and his speech therapist. The acting is very well done (Colin Firth plays the monarch, Geoffrey Rush—who I kept expecting to lapse into pirate speak—played the therapist, and Helena Bonham Carter played Liz, who would become Queen Elizabeth). The movie is rated R solely because of language (to help with the speech impediment, George VI is encouraged to use profanity at one point). I’ve read that they are planning to re-edit the film to take this out so that it can be rated PG-13 and get a wider audience. I think that’s a bad mistake though. If they edited it because it wasn’t historically accurate for him to do that (I don’t know if it is or isn’t), then that would be fine; but for the film, and in this context, the profanity really isn’t profane. It’s like Tourette’s Syndrome, where the word are just noise and sounds and they don’t really have meaning.

As for the audience, however, it is true that it appears to be very…how shall we put this? In the words of Spinal Tap, there aren’t fewer people going, it’s just that the audience has become more selective. Now, my numbers are a bit skewed because I went on a weekday when I’m on vacation. Most other people are at work or in school. So it’s probably not that much of a surprise that I’d estimate the audience in the theater I was in to be about 25 people. Of that, maybe 5 were under the age of 50 years. Oh yes, that includes me.

The movie experience was, therefore, quite similar to me watching a movie with my grandparents. For instance, the therapist in the film insisted on calling Prince Albert “Bertie” so they’d be on familiar terms instead of according to royal custom (i.e., “Your highness”). Every time Rush’s character said, “Bertie” the woman behind me said, “Why did he call him Betty?” And her husband would say, “He said, ‘Bertie.’” “Oh. Why?” “Because his name’s Albert.” “So why did he call him Betty?”

Yeah, so it was pretty much exactly like watching a movie with my grandparents :-)

In any case, the acting was superb. I haven’t seen much of the competition this year, but Firth definitely did an Oscar caliber performance. However, the movie as a whole isn’t really my style. I commend it for its excellent job, but will most likely not be purchasing this film when it comes out on DVD. I would still say it’s worth watching, though.

I watched Inglorious Basterds by Quentin Tarantino today. It’s his World War II “revenge” piece, giving us an alternate universe where several Jewish-Americans go throughout occupied France scalping Nazis, and culminates in a cinema where Goebbels propaganda is being shown with all the key players in Nazi Germany in attendance giving the opportunity for the end of the war should these basterds (a word purposely misspelled) prevail. I won’t give away how the plot ends.

When I left the theater, I was thinking “That’s one messed up movie. But in a good way.” And it’s true. The violence is, as typical Tarantino, over-the-top, and as he has consistently shown through all his movies it contains elements of satire within it. Indeed, part of what makes a Tarantino movie compelling is his extremely dark sense of humor, and the fact that he will go places that any other director would consider lame. It works for Tarantino, however—instead of being lame, when a handwritten scrawl with an arrow points out who one of the Nazi leadership is it just fits in as being something Tarantino does. Sorta like the anime in the middle of Kill Bill Volume 1. It doesn’t make sense on its own, and no other director would have done it, but it’s perfect in the Tarantino universe.

In any case, this will be a movie that you’ll either love or hate. If you like other Tarantino, you’ll like this one. And if you hate Tarantino, well this won’t improve your opinion of him. Still, you won’t walk out of Inglorious Basterds feeling like you’ve just watched every clichéd movie ever written. You’ll leave thinking: “Well, that was certainly different.” And Tarantino’s best skill—his ability to craft realistic dialogue—shines through in many examples in this film.

One final note is Brad Pitt. For the first time since…well, ever, Pitt actually acts well in a movie. A large part of it is due to the simplistic nature of his character. The only real skill Pitt needed to master was a Southern drawl, since he played a man from the hills of Tennessee. Indeed, that led to one of the funnier moments in the film when Pitt’s character has to pass himself off as an Italian film director, and you get Pitt’s redneck drawl mixed with Italian words. It’s similar to listening to a Texan try to pronounce Spanish, only more so. You’ll have to watch it to fully understand what I mean there—although I’m sure soon enough it’ll be on YouTube too.

I just got back from watching An American Carol, the new film by David Zucker. It stars Kevin Farley, the brother of the late Chris Farley of “in a van down by the river” fame, and is a typical Zucker-esque film. Over all, I’m not a large fan of the style of humor that Zucker has, since it tends to rely more on slapstick and horrific puns; however, the Zucker brothers have always managed to pull it off to make better than average movies (Airplane!, The Naked Gun series, etc.). David, who is now a conservative, manages to pull it off very effectively without his still-liberal brother, Jerry. (Jerry, in fact, wants to make it clear that he has nothing to do with this movie.)

The movie is blatantly right-wing, and gets bonus points in my book because of that. Liberals are going to hate this movie with a passion. It has everything in it that could possibly offend them. In fact, it reminds me of a Stephen Colbert episode in reverse…

It will be interesting to see what reaction all the liberals who say conservatives have no sense of humor will do now that they are the ones being lampooned. The reviews I’ve read so far are not promising. But then, consistency never has been a liberal strong point.

For the record, if Public Transit ever did become a movie, I’d love for David Zucker to direct it.

That said, the movie isn’t perfect, even for someone who is in the tank for the right wing. Instead of an A+, I’ll have to give it an A-, borderline B+ even. Again, a lot of this has to do with the fact that I’m not a huge fan of the style of humor, and I’d give the same marks for Airplane! for instance. So if you loved Airplane! then you’ll love this movie, assuming you’re not Michael Moore.

One final note. The irony of the movie extended beyond the movie itself. Indeed, it began during the previews for coming attractions. We got to see previews for Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Sexdrive. In other words, the typical liberal fare that constitutes “humor.” The contrast between that and the humor of An American Carol is something that David Zucker would have loved to have planned, I’m sure. Instead, he got it for free. The rest of Hollywood will miss this; but for some reason I doubt “fly-over country” will…

I just got back from watching The Dark Knight at the Imax. Let me just say that I went into the film with high expectations, and they were not disappointed. Heath Ledger gave a tremendous performance, and I would agree with any of the posthumous Oscar drives for him. The other acting was quite solid too.

Where the movie shines is in the character development. This film isn’t a typical Hollywood film. It certainly isn’t a typical “superhero” movie. The Nolan brothers have crafted a story that would have worked in any setting–it would not have needed Batman or the Joker at all. And because of that, it gives a sense of reality to the series. You actually feel like you can understand the inner workings, the motivations, of each character.

The result is a movie that I already rank within my top 5 favorites, and I’ve only seen it once. I will, however, see it many more times, and will definitely buy it when it comes out on DVD (although you really need an Imax screen to appreciate the film…and some awesome speakers for the killer soundtrack that Zimmer and Howard put together).

One final word. For those of you who read my Thirty Days of Night review, take everything in there and reverse it and you’ve got the level of movie that The Dark Knight is.

WTF Just Happened?

INT. CLASSROOM – DAY

MARK W is teaching a class. He is a complete dork and couldn’t act to save his life.

All the bees are dead.

I’m allergic to bee-stings.

Where did their bodies go?

Global Warming!

Could be.

Bush did it!

Exactly! Bush did it.

There are sudden screams from outside.

What is it? That noise. I mean, what
is that noise?

Someone just jumped off the roof of
the bank!

(with cell phone camera)
I’m so gonna put this vid up on MySpace!

The SUPERINTENDENT of the school rushes into the room.

We’re all going to die!

He throws himself out the window. The kids continue filming it with their cell phones.

CUT TO…

EXT. WOODS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE – DAY

Why do we have to walk? The train
was running perfectly well.

I think M. Night’s been reading The
Stand. God, I hope we don’t have to
walk all the way to Boulder.

They stop five feet away from a fifteen-story building.

Where do we go now?

I don’t know. Hey look, a building!

Good thing you saw that or we’d be
stuck here forever!

They go the door of the building. It has a giant red screen reading “LOCKED”, a huge padlock on the door, etc. Mark W. tries the door anyway.

Oh no! It’s locked!

We’re doomed!

Behind them, a BUSH appears looking menacing.

We’ll be safe as long as the wind doesn’t
blow.

The wind blows.

MAN THIS MOVIE BLOWS!

They run into a conveniently placed cottage, but Mark W. goes in one door and Zooey in a different one!!!!

Zooey! I love you! Where are you?

I don’t know! It’s dark. I’m scared.

Just stay alive! I WILL FIND YOU!

We get a top-down view, showing Zooey and Mark in two rooms at the end of a long hall. The doors are not locked.

I can’t live without you.

He walks as slowly as possible outside. Zooey does too. They meet in the field and kiss.

We’re not dead!

Our careers are.

The end credits begin. The camera pulls back from the screen showing…a dead audience.

The credits end. We see the fifteen story building. The screen changes from “LOCKED” to “UNLOCKED.” The door opens.

An AVALANCHE OF BEE CORPSES falls out.

I just got back from watching The Happening with my friend Travis. Thankfully, the movie theater provided us with a refund. Because seriously, I’ve had bowel movements that were more creative than this movie.

How shall I sum this up?

I think that was about as subtle as the point M. Night Shyamalaladingdong was trying to make.

It’s difficult to believe this is the same guy that wrote Signs and The Sixth Sense. I don’t know what M. Night was smoking when he thought This is a great idea for a movie!, but for the sake of the universe whatever it was needs to be criminalized.

The Happening was supposed to be a scary movie, one that would thrill you. Instead, it’s so bad you couldn’t even spoof it. We’re treated to an endless montage of the worst dialogue ever penned coming from characters so flat they disappeared when they turned sideways (and Wahlburg had to have what’s got to be the absolute worst delivered “Oh no” ever put on film). To make up for it, however, there was no plot. The motivating force of the movie was simple: “See everyone who’s not Mark Wahlburg, Zooey Deschanel, or Ashyln Sanchez? They’re going to die.”

Normally, that fact would rank up there as a SPOILER ALERT but unless you’re dumber than a package of mislabeled UPS bubble wrap (which, incidentally, would have written a better script than M. Night), you figure this out pretty much 27 seconds into the movie. Ergo, I haven’t ruined anything for you.

This movie is Shyamalan’s first R-rated movie. I agree with Travis, who said it would have worked better as a PG-13 movie. It’s rated R for gore, and the gore just doesn’t fit. There are movies where gore is appropriate (We Were Soliders, When Harry Met Sally), but The Happening is not one of those films. Instead, it’s distracting. The film is set up just so that M. Night can kill each character in more gruesome ways.

The problem is that for a horror movie to work, you actually have to care about the characters who are at risk of death. That’s where the scary part comes in. You empathize with them and you don’t want them to die. In this film, each death scene is so abrupt and so over the top that it’s closer to a comedy than a horror flick. This sets a dangerous precedent.

The film is also so on-the-nose that it’s pathetic. The Earth is dying and we are the problem. It’s so bad, after the guy gets run over by a lawnmower, you see the real estate sign proudly saying, “You got what you deserved!” Yeah, nothing subtle about that, M. Night! Where’s the skill you had when you weaved the threads of Signs together?

Also, this whole notion that everyone from the Midwest is a militia gun nut? Pathetic. Go back to your progressive cave and spawn a stalk of asparagus or something.

To conclude, the only good part of this movie was The X-Files trailer. And I could have watched that on You Tube for free. If I wanted to see something on the caliber of this movie, I’d watch a compost heap for a few hours. For the first time ever, I asked for my money back after watching a film. The theater probably was not surprised. But if this movie is still showing on Friday, I’ll be surprised.

Last month, I was able to watch a screening of Ben Stein’s upcoming movie, Expelled (http://www.getexpelled.com/). Stein was there at the presentation too, so I got to sit through a little Q&A with him. At the time, all viewers had to sign a confidentiality agreement that precluded us from writing reviews about the movie. That restriction was lifted yesterday, however, so today I bring you my review of Expelled.

For those who know absolutely nothing about the film, Expelled is Stein’s look at Intelligent Design and the way that ID proponents are expelled from the “academy” via academic censorship. The basic goal of the film is to publicize the fact that there are professors who question Darwinistic dogma who are then censured for it, who cannot get tenure, who are fired from their jobs, etc. Therefore, on a broad issue, the film is designed simply to publicize the suppression of free-thought by Darwinists and not to provide an apologetic for ID as such.

Since I knew this was the motivation, I watched the film intentionally thinking of what Darwinists would say in response to it. Because of that, when I watched it I found the movie does have some weaknesses. The main drawback to it from the intellectual standpoint is that it relied on a heavy emotional link to Social Darwinism, especially manifest by Hitler’s Darwinism; thus the “intellectual” Darwinist will most certainly respond: “It’s nothing but emotive propaganda with no substance” (which isn’t true, but the emotive aspect was emphasized enough that it did sometimes feel that way even to this ID proponent).

By the way, I should also point out that I don’t think it’s bad in and of itself for the movie to play on the Social Darwinistic evils that have come about; atheists harp on the Crusades enough that they deserve this. And frankly most people are unaware of the links between Eugenics and Darwinism and Planned Parenthood, which are also mentioned in the film along with Hitler and the Communists.

Throughout the film is the metaphor of the Berlin Wall, and Stein ends the film by paralleling Reagan’s famous “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech. The attempt is to get people to know the wall exists so that others will be able to work at chipping it away. The rallying cry is: “We need academic freedom, and that includes the freedom to believe contra-Darwin about origins of life.” I do believe the film captures this goal, and so it succeeds at what it attempts to do.

So to review it, it definitely would get a solid A in my book. And while the movie is only 97 minutes long in the form I saw, Stein told us the DVD is going to have tons more footage and extra features in it, including what will probably become one of the most famous Dawkins interviews, at least for the IDers.

In fact, that interview remains the most memorable portion of the film if, for no other reason, than the fact that I have read so much of Dawkins materials beforehand. Stein had Dawkins looking absolutely flummoxed. During Stein’s interview, Dawkins stated that it was impossible that there is an Intelligent Designer. Stein asked him for a percentage on how sure he is of that idea. Dawkins refuses to give an exact number, then finally decided on 99%. Stein asked: “Couldn’t it be 49% instead?” Dawkins responded with his typical: “No, the probability of a designer is nowhere near half” etc. Then, Stein pressed Dawkins on how the first cell was created, and in the end Dawkins actually acknowledged that he could accept the theory of panspermia (aliens did it). Everyone in the theater laughed, because after just saying it was impossible for intelligent design to have created life on Earth, Dawkins admits that aliens that were “more intellectually advanced than we are” (as close to a direct quote as I can recall from memory of something I saw only once) could have done it after all.

As a funny aside, one of the questions Stein was asked during our forum was: “Do you think you treated Dawkins fairly in the movie?” To which Stein responded (accurately, as those of you who have read Dawkins already know): “I think we treated him charitably. There were many hostile responses he gave that we edited out, where his response was basically, ‘I’m Richard Dawkins and you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m Richard Dawkins!’” It remains to be seen how much of the entire interview will be in the DVD version of the film.

Naturally, this film will not convince any Darwinist to look at ID…but then, no film could do that. It will hopefully be enough to pry open the door a bit for some so that others can come along with more detailed explanations in the future.

I just watched Resident Evil: Apocalypse which was included with Resident Evil on a nifty little two-pack. I remember watching the first Resident Evil years ago, but I really forgot how cheesy these movies were. The first one was still infinitely better than the second one, but the second one really made me appreciate Shaun of the Dead that much more.

Question. Why is it that zombies that are so slow can sneak up on people so fast? Further, why is it that the main characters are stupid enough to go into a dark room and breathe a sigh of relief? (This is just asking for a big bite to get taken out of your shoulder.)

Oh well. At least they weren’t vampires in Alaska. Still, I really have to ask…where are the good zombie horror writers?

I wonder if it means anything when I won’t write a zombie story. Perhaps it means it’s just impossible to do anything with the zombie genre. Maybe that’s why all zombie movies (that aren’t spoofs) totally suck. There just isn’t enough there.

Or perhaps authors need to get away from cliches and stupid protagonists who go out of their way to die horrific deaths.

I just got back from watching The Mist. Since Stephen King has threatened to hang anyone who reveals the ending, I shall not do so for you. But I will say this about it: Frank Darabont’s adaptation is straight out of Richard Bachman’s head, which is precisely why Stephen King loved it.

This wasn’t King’s best story. Also, I disagree with him because I do not think it’s the scariest thing he’s written (then again, it’s been roughly 15 years since I read the novella, so maybe re-reading it will change my mind). But the characters are refreshingly real, except for the religious nutbag. (I found myself wishing I could jump on the screen and throttle her by the neck screaming, “Learn some stinkin’ exegesis!” whereas the rest of the audience simply wanted her to die a painful and horrific death.)

In other words, this was no Thirty Days of Night where characters consistently make the absolute stupidest decisions possible. No, here even when characters make dumb decisions there’s at least a little bit of a rationale behind their decision. They don’t go screaming through the middle of the parking lot; they leave because (in one instance) they doubt that anything that’s happening is actually real–it’s just hype.

On to the grades: the script scores a B+ in my book, possibly an A- since the movie is interesting enough that I’ll want to watch it again. However, there were some things about the script that were annoying, and I’m not sold on the ending. Some bonus points do go to Darabont for incorporating part of the King Universe into the movie. For example, the main character, David Drayton (played by Thomas Jane) is an artist who is painting a picture of none other than the gunslinger, Roland of Gilead. Other posters on the wall included The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile (but that’s to be expected, given Frank Darabont did both of those movies too). In this case, instead of looking like cheesy product placements, it fit King’s use of intertwining stories among other stories inside his universe, especially the Roland pic (as those who know anything about the Dark Tower series will understand).

The special effects for the movie were also top notch, and as usual with King’s material the actors had enough material to do a great job looking and sounding real. The only real let down from the technical side came from the music, composed by Mark Isham. There were large chunks of the movie with no music at all, which fit the mood perfectly. Unfortunately, it meant that when the music did play it was quite noticably bad.

Other than that, as I mentioned earlier with the script, the film scores a solid B+, possibly eeking out to an A- if I watch it again.

I remember as a kid that my parents once showed me and my siblings the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was young at the time (somewhere in my low teens) and all I could remember about the movie is it was extremely long and boring. And there were monkeys in it. Plus a talking computer that got disconnected. But other than that, it was long and boring. And also long. Plus boring.

Anyway, this weekend I saw that they had the special edition of the movie on sale for $10, and since it’d been so long since I’d watched it and since I’d grown a lot since I’d watched it, I figured I’d pick it up and watch it again and see how I feel about it now. So I figured I’d review it here.

First of all, the movie is long and boring. There’s also some monkeys in it, a talking computer that gets disconnected, and it’s really long. Plus boring.

Other than that the movie was…well, underwhelming isn’t weak enough.

Frankly, I can’t see why people make such a big deal about this movie. The plot is completely stupid, and I guarantee that no one knows what the movie is about.

How do I know this? Ask ten people and they’ll give you two hundred answers about what the movie is about. My favorite Camille Paglia, a feminist whacko, who concludes that when Dave turns off HAL 9000, it’s really a depiction of a sociopathic man raping a woman. Yes, you heard that right. When a man acts to turn off a computer that has killed everyone else on the ship, that is the same as rape (and I thought Public Transit was fiction.)

Don’t believe me? Check out the video here. At the 5:55 mark is when Paglia goes off on the Dave = rapist point.

By the way, I’m pretty sure Paglia has a psychosis. But that’s neither here nor there.

The end result after having seen 2001 a second time at a much older age is…

This movie sucks.

UPDATE: After talking to a co-worker, I’ve concluded that if Dave’s killing of HAL 9000 constitutes a metaphor for rape, then the rest of the movie is a metaphor showing that if you leave a woman unsupervised for five minutes she’ll kill everyone on board the ship…