For an epic tale, it is in many ways narrow in scope. There is little backstory. We begin in Italy, where black airmen are already flying missions. There is little to no information about their backgrounds and training, though it is obvious they are well-educated. There is some story on the ground, enough to keep the film moving and interesting. But it’s also cliched and a little cheesy in moments, in the ways you’d probably expect. And that’s okay.

Take one part Star Wars and one part Top Gun and you’ve got the feel for the battles in-flight. I am not a big action fan, but I enjoyed them.

Red Tails is not going to win many awards. But it’s the kind of movie that needs to keep being made. In a nation full of reality television vapidity, Red Tails is a movie that exposes people to true American heroes who embodied excellence and were willing to sacrifice everything for a country all too ready to count them out. The Tuskegee Airmen were men of courage and of faith. This film honors their memory and is the sort of story that inspires and will continue to do so for many years as children watch it for the first time and are inspired to learn more about their history.

Lucas has mentioned that as he contemplated the project for over two decades, he eventually envisioned the story as a trilogy (surprise, surprise!) However strange it sounds, I would love to see a prequel made that explains the background and training of the men before they reach Europe. A sequel that shows what happens when they return home would also make a worthwhile film. Though Red Tails does stand alone, it feels incomplete, there is just so much story left to be told.

I’d commend Red Tails to you and I think it is more family friendly than the rating (PG-13) implies. The language is pretty clean and the romance is not nearly as racy as 90% of PG-13 movies. (I am happy to describe it for you if you are curious / worried.) The rating is for the violence of war, which is less gruesome in the air than other combat movies. Red Tails opens tomorrow in theaters nationwide.

But it’s also a good reminder of the ways that art shows us great truths about the world. I love what the movie says about nostalgia, love, and writing.

Here’s a good representative line from the main character: “That’s what the present is. It’s a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying.” We all long for more. Whether it manifests itself in hope for the future or a longing for the past, the fact that things are just not the way they ought to be is inescapable.

This is not a real review, but it is an invitation to borrow this from your nearest redbox or rent it from amazon instant video soon.

I was completely surprised by this film when I had a chance to screen it last month. Director Craig Brewer (who also worked on the rewrite) has made an enjoyable movie in the spirit of the original Footloose, with its energy and fun, and possibly even surpassed it in heart.

In the remake, the characters seem more developed and real. I did not know how anyone could live up to the iconic Kevin Bacon Ren, but the writing (particularly the changes to the backstory) combined with his talent and likability make Kenny Wormald great in this role.

Setting it in the South added another dimension to the film. I found it familiar and the jokes hysterical, but if you loathe anything country and Southern, be warned that this has its fair share of that vibe.

The original film has quite a bit of sex, drugs, drinking and violence, and I was curious as to how they would be handled in a remake, especially one that seemed a little more intense from the trailer. Overall, I thought the portrayals of “risky behavior” sent a better message than the original without coming off as hokey in the least. I think the PG-13 rating is fair, but I would show it to Kate and Lexi long before I’d show them the original.

It will be obvious to filmgoers that Brewer loves Footloose and wanted to do it justice in this remake. He pays tribute and yet develops the film. You can watch a short interview with him about the process here. If you give Footloose a chance, I think you will be pleasantly surprised as well. It opens everywhere this Friday. (8.5/10)

Ryan Gosling is extremely strong in the role of young press secretary Stephen Meyers. Idealistic and driven, he carries the movie and makes it look effortless. Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman are fantastic as seasoned political operatives and rivals. The dialogue is expertly crafted, believable, and with how well the film was shot, I felt transported and engaged in this high-stakes political world.

As well as this film was acted (and it was), the plot is probably its weakest point. I’d encourage you to learn as little about it as you can about what happens before you see it to prevent it from seeming too cliched. I really enjoyed The Ides of March, in spite of its weaknesses, and I think it has something worthwhile to say both about the political process and about human nature. See it before it gets spoiled for you. (8/10)

Crazy, Stupid, Love starts with happily married Cal being dropped a bomb by his wife, Emily: she’s had an affair and wants a divorce. The film traces his response to her mid-life crisis – a crisis of his own, aided and abetted by Jacob, the quintessential lady-killer who helps Cal find his groove (and some style.)

Like many modern films and television shows, CSL is a “dramedy.” When the genre is at its best, like in CSL, it really works, reaching the audience on many levels. The whole theatre laughed uproariously at the goofy parts and seemed moved by the story, which was insightful and sweet. Using Steve Carrell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone made a big difference to the dramatic parts of the story. Because they aren’t known for being in tons of puffy rom-coms, they came off as sincere and likable (except for maybe Moore, but I think that was a conscious choice on her part.) The plot devices seemed less formulaic in their capable hands.

Yes, I said formulaic, but I still found it well-written, sometimes the clique is the right choice. I appreciated the cultural references which were mainstream and fun. More daring was the soundtrack, but it fit the film well. The cinematography also aided the storytelling of the film, there was a good amount of grain and handheld shooting that gave it a more organic quality.

I wouldn’t say this is a “must see in the theatre opening weekend!” kind of film, but I don’t see many movies in the theatre these days (tickets + babysitter = not worth it.) I think most people will enjoy it, though, whenever you have the chance to see it. (Rated PG-13)

* i didn’t like it
** it was okay
*** liked it
**** really liked it
***** it was amazing

It’s simple and intuitive, but it leaves much to be desired. There are great books that I don’t necessarily like, but I still find worth reading for some reason or another. For example, I don’t know that I “really liked” Lolita. But it is marked four stars on my goodreads account. I think Nabov set out to show us a warped mind, a thoroughly unlikeable narrator, a child we want to care for and can’t always bring ourselves to. He portrayed coercion and tyranny in dark, messy, and very human ways. It was a novel the world didn’t know we needed, and for that, I think the book has a rightful place among the classics.

Sometimes books are written or movies are made with a purpose in mind other than leaving the audience with a warm and fuzzy feeling. And then they need to be evaluated by whether that purpose is worth pursuing, and how well they fulfilled their purpose. Criticism larger than just plain gut reaction. In that way, a movie with an ending you aren’t happy with can still be something that you believe is an amazing film.

I am not sure how we fix the stars of goodreads, just know that likability is not my only concern as I rate.

There are some romantic comedy cliches (I am not entirely sure why the long-haired friend is even in the film) but the little sister character was pretty awesome, as cliches go. I loved her saying over wii tennis early in the movie “just because some girl likes the same bizarro crap you do, doesn’t make her your soul mate.” Even though, as the narrator says, it is not a love story, it’s true and real, and not without hope. See it!

Not only did we see a movie in the actual theatre… we saw TWO in two days. I am not a movie critic, and don’t feel as comfortable reviewing a film as I do a book, but I’ll do it anyway.

Michael’s choice was Sherlock Holmes. We both loved it. He’d see it again tonight if I would let him. It’s really well done, the acting is great, the colors and conception are both excellent, it’s one I envision we will end up owning.

My choice was Up in the Air. I loved Thank You for Smoking and Juno and think Jason Reitman may just be the go-to guy making real movies about life in our generation and I wanted to support it. It was a fantastic film. You ought to see it. It’s a thoughtful film that explores community, why we need it, how we figure out that we do… in a smart and beautiful way with characters that are real and deeply flawed. Even the editing stood out to me for how well it captured different aspects of the film. I am looking forward to digesting it more over days and viewings to come.

Happy St Crispin’s Day!

Has anyone read anything about this from a Reformed perspective? My first thought is to lean in the other direction. The writer of Hebrews seems to go at length to show how Christ was ‘just like us’ in our humanity. God did not deliver Christ from the natural suffering coming from crucification, why would we suppose that he spared Mary from the natural suffering that accompanies child birth? Taylor makes the point that Mary could have been delivered from the curse of Eve as was being used to bring the new Adam into the world.

What do you think?

Hitch (2005) with Will Smith and Kevin James was funny enough to warrant renting if you haven’t seen it. Not the world’s best comedy, but pretty solid nonetheless. ***

Evelyn (2002) with Pierce Brosnan was okay. An interesting story, but a little too sappy, even for this pregnant momma. **

Ocean’s Twelve (2004) was a disappointment. They tried way too hard with this one. *

All of this made me wonder: I know this story already. I know the background to something that happens for only a few seconds or is in the background of the shot. How much sense did the movie make to someone who hadn’t read the book? How much more (if any) would someone get from watching it again after having finally read the book?

Final thought: if they did all this editing for POA, what will they do to GOF or OOTP? There is too much to cut in GOF/OOTP. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see.