Growing up without a father in the home [cue: “After-School Special” music], I can personally attest to the effects a father’s absence has. Whether or not I’m a hero or villain has yet to be determined; I suppose I’m somewhere in between (ha!). Seriously though, there are numerous sources that link to youth suicide, high school dropouts, poverty, teen pregnancy, and criminal behavior with the absence of a father in the home. The media, it seems, only reflects society when it comes to father issues.

I wish I could say HAMLET 2 deals with daddy problems in a serious, purposeful manner, but, as you can tell from the movie trailers, the movie is an absurdist comedy. It’s a hilarious, offensive, and almost inspiring film that says, “Sure, I have problems with my father, but it’s okay, I can laugh at it, and still do something with my life”. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed watching this movie, in spite of its ridiculous situations and its Christianity-mocking jokes?

In the apparently boring town of Tucson, Arizona, the volunteer high school drama teacher and former (terrible) commercial actor, Dana Marschz, is an optimistic neurotic in spite of his admitted lack of talent and failing department. The school is cutting the drama department because of budget issues and also because Dana tends to produce horrible stage renditions of popular films like Erin Brokovich (just imagine the humorous possibilities). A local theatre critic, after lambasting Dana’s latest production, suggests that Dana try and produce his own material.

Dana (wonderfully portrayed by Steve Coogan), in fact, had been working on a personal piece, called HAMLET 2, for years that deals with unresolved issues he has with his father. Dana’s positive-against-all-odds nature compells him to finish the ‘what if’ sequel to William Shakespeare’s original “Hamlet” because he never understood why everyone had to die in it. Using a time machine as a cheesy plot device, Dana’s HAMLET 2 is his response to that downer, a testament to the occasional thought in all of us about ‘what could have been’ or ‘what should have been’.

However, we only see and hear snippets of what’s in the play’s script, and they’re usually absurd and offensive scenes involving Christianity and sexuality. This of course, leads to opposition from the high school principal, the school board, and the drama students’ parents. And part of the running joke in the movie is Dana’s justification for the scenes, which are as equally absurd as the scenes themselves, but seem to make sense in a strange way, relating to his own life-struggles.

That’s when he’s stuck with a motley crowd of ‘troubled’ kids after an asbestos problem at the school forces certain electives to be cancelled, herding the students into the empty drama class. At first, it seemed easy to dismiss HAMLET 2 as a parody of ‘inspiring teacher’ movies, but the movie only hints at these kinds of movies mainly as a joke, because as we can see, this teacher has problems far greater than those of his students.

Steve Coogan, who coincidentally plays a frustrated director in another actor-spoofing film, Tropic Thunder, is brilliant as the lovable loser desperate to finish his magnum opus, despite his failing marriage and career. Coogan’s nuanced performance captures the broad, over-dramatic cheese one can find in a high school theatre teacher, while portraying a passion to pass on the love of acting to the next generation. He finds the real, funny, and painful moments in his character’s life. He also has a knack for big physical comedy, which I admit can be very funny, but makes some of the film feel a bit juvenile. Watching people fall and get bonked in the head is definitely not considered high-brow humor, but the clever story elements and dialogue give balance to what could be a really stupid movie.

The movie also hints at the idea of having artistic integrity in the face of fascist oppression, but that blurs into parody since it’s obvious that the play is not of high artistic value, even though it has a lot of profound meaning to writer-director Dana. Instead, this often irreverent movie elevates the characteristics of dedication, determination and perseverance. The drama students transcend their stereotypes into a band of hard-working amateurs putting on the show of their lives – a play even bigger than the sleepy town of Tucson.

Understand that the situation and songs of the play within the movie include some very vulgar and offensive content. Topics like rape and sexuality are explored mainly through dialogue, but the big controversy is probably the almost-blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ in the play – as a time-travelling, cell phone user with a surfer bod. Apparently, Dana felt it was necessary to include Him in his play because of the supposed Father-Son issues needing resolution. No doubt the songs, including an infectiously catchy tune to which Jesus enters the scene (“Rock Me, Sexy Jesus!”) will offend moviegoers with a moral sensibility. And now recalling certain moments in the film, I find myself smiling in disbelief at the humor infused amidst the mockery. Oh boy, it’s bad.

But there’s something very non-risky about mocking Christianity, it’s Book (the Bible), or it’s central figure, Jesus Christ who once said, “turn the other cheek” if an evil person were to strike you. The common mockery makes it very safe for storytellers in the media to tell their supposedly edgy, pushing-the-envelope stories. I have a sense that God is not offended by these puny mortals who parade around acting as if God is distracted by their ostentatious display of disrespect. But should there be a limit to tolerating religious mockery?

Before I digress, let me conclude by saying that passed the goofy exterior, through the joking about daddy-issues and taboo topics, HAMLET 2 is a manifestation of the wish to go back in time and change things; to erase past mistakes and undo the tragedy into which our lives might’ve unfolded, to restore the shattered dreams, to say sorry when we were silent, to ask forgiveness, and to forgive.

You may not come to the same conclusion, but you might agree that HAMLET 2 is a raucous, hilarious, offensive, and inspiring feat that will have you jumping in the aisles, rockin’ for Jesus! Okay, maybe not that last part; excuse me, I was practicing my Peter Travers-esque quote-whoring.

The story, originated in the mind of Ben Stiller, follows a band of actors trying to make a war movie who end up, unbeknownst to them, getting mixed up in some real-life battle in the jungles of Vietnam. This fictional movie is supposed to be based on a book, Tropic Thunder, written by a veteran soldier, Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), who led a group of soldiers in a secret mission to retrieve a rogue soldier (Apocalypse Now!, anyone?).

The studio wants to shut down production on Tropic Thunder because it’s over budget and the rookie director (played by Steve Coogan) is having trouble handling his prima donna actors. In an effort to save the movie, Four Leaf suggests that he and the director shoot the movie guerrilla style, setting up hidden cameras all over the jungle and letting the actors loose. Of course, things go awry and the local militia cause trouble.

It’s a simple setup that blatantly references the real-life production fiasco of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now! in the late ’70s, but Tropic Thunder never steals from Apocalypse per se. It definitely integrates similar scenes in its story, but it plays out more like homage and humorous reference. And while the story’s basic framework references Apocalypse, the actual meat of the movie is a different animal altogether.

Movies that mock the film industry tend to be a bit too specific, losing the average non-film geek along the way. But Thunder relates its story with over-the-top humor, that, although vulgar and violent, is still very approachable to general audiences today. And in case you wanted a little more than just a dumb comedy, Thunder has a great ensemble cast led by awesome talent, and a layer of simple homage that can be appreciated by movie geeks as well.

Be aware though, it certainly earns its R rating. The film features gratuitously violent (yet comical?) moments involving severed limbs, heroin addiction, and an ocean of f-bombs. And aside from that, the movie is bound to offend with its comedic attacks on almost every minority, including racial groups and those Hollywood elite circles of agents, producers, and famous actors.

Now let me take a moment to mention the standout performance of Robert Downey, Jr. (who else?) as the White dude playing a Black dude, which no doubt will raise a few eyebrows. I’ve always admired his acting ability, particularly his recent display of talent in films like Zodiac and Iron Man. In Tropic Thunder, he plays Kirk Lazarus, a lily-white, multi-Oscar-winning Australian actor so dedicated to his craft that he’s literally lost his identity in the characters he plays. Although Lazarus (an obvious spoof on real-life actor Russell Crowe) is a definite crowd-pleasing, over-the-top character, Downey, Jr. seems to have found a way to infuse a real, albeit simplistic, inner conflict. Lazarus is cast as a Black man in the movie (within the movie), which of course is a ludicrous idea that results in a ton of laughs that ring truth about the ridiculosity of Hollywood. It makes it worse, or funnier, that an actual black character, played by Brandon T. Jackson (Roll Bounce) is cast in the movie, sort of like the “token Black guy,” losing the lead to Lazarus. This may seem offensive on the surface, but it is approachable commentary on media-race relations in Hollywood masked in the jokes.

Perhaps he doesn’t always know when to stop, and he ventures far into the awkward, vulgar, and dumb, but Stiller inserts commentary amidst the potty humor and profanity. As in Zoolander, Stiller employs his brand of “clever stupidity” in Tropic Thunder, transcending simple spoof into sizzling satire that speaks a little from a Hollywood insider’s perspective.

Full of tongue-in-cheek over-the-topness, Tropic Thunder aims to please while sending a small nugget of a message having something to do with being comfortable in your own skin, and achieving things you never thought possible through perseverance, blah, blah, blah. Ah, who am I kidding? The message might just as well be: Hollywood cares only about making money and exploiting the suffering of the few while hopefully anesthetizing you with multisensory entertainment. In that sense, Tropic Thunder becomes a indulgent display of Hollywood irony, biting the hand that feeds it. Oh, but how funny and action-packed is that irony indeed.

—-
Originally published at HollywoodJesus.com
I have to give credit to Greg Wright at HJ for giving this review a great title.

So it pains me a bit to say that Pineapple Express, the latest shindig from the Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen gang, was actually entertaining. I had fun watching this offensive, pot-smoking caper unfold, and director David Gordon Green (of whose Undertow I am a fan) steps up the cinematic quality by adding some visual storytelling style to what could be just another crude comedy.

Now, before you go rushing to the theatre, let me make it clear: Pineapple Express was funny, and thankfully, not overflowing with a vulgar sex-obsessed storyline, but it’s another dumb pothead movie, regardless of the filmmakers’ intentions. Star and co-writer Seth Rogen (Knocked Up) said in an interview that he didn’t want want Pineapple Express to be just another pothead movie; he wanted to make pot-smoking more commonplace and accepted in films, citing The 40 Year Old Virgin, as the first of their ilk’s films to insert scenes of nonchalant pot-smoking.

Pineapple follows Dale Denton (Rogen), a pot-smoking process server who buys a rare strain of marijuana called Pineapple Express from his needs-a-friend dealer, Saul (James Franco). One night while on a job, Dale witnesses a murder by a drug lord and a dirty cop, and accidentally drops his joint nearby as he flees the scene. Since the weed is so rare, he and Saul are easy to track down. And so the murderers are after them, hilarious hijinks ensue.

The story is reminiscent of other pot-infused, crime-comedy caper, buddy movies like The Big Lebowski, Half Baked, How High, etc. In that sense, it’s not original. But there is a certain well-crafted quality to the movie, not in terms of story structure, but in the way it’s put together. It could be the director, but whatever the case, it certainly makes it a different kind of stoner movie. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, though.

Funny and strange, filled with the regular cast of Apatow slacker schlubs, Pineapple Express continues in the vein of Super Bad and Knocked Up, revealing what’s apparently going on the filmmakers’ hormone-driven minds. Unfortunately, America may think that Apatow and Rogen speak for all men when they portray them as clubhopping, sex-obsessed, potheads who refuse to grow up — and that it’s okay to be that way, because, as these movies suggest, all men really are like that. It may be obvious, but I feel the need to say that these guys don’t speak for the rest.

It’s unfortunate to think that this movie will probably enforce beliefs that it’s totally okay to be high all the time, and that it’s perfectly fine for grown men to act like they never matured passed third grade. Co-writers Seth Rogen (pro-weed) and Judd Apatow (anti-weed) reportedly disputed over the film’s message regarding the use of pot. However, there is a somber moment in Pineapple where Dale and Saul get fed up with each other and life because of everything going wrong. The filmmakers get to slip in a “our lives suck because we’re always high” moment which I think works, even if it’s a sort of forgotten by the end.

Don’t get me wrong, folks, I do actually see beautiful, poignant, sensitive messages amidst the overflow of offense in these vulgar movies, but there’s too much release-of-pent-up-sexual-tension to consider them great movies. And it’s not like everything is vulgar, there is plenty of clean material in Pineapple Express. But it’s just the matter-of-fact lack of morality in both action and dialogue in the movie that bugs me when I reflect on the story.

I realize that these types of “chick flicks for guys” movies are exaggerated reflections of a hedonistic man-culture, and most of the content is so commonplace in that it no longer offends its target audience. Sadly, it is this adolescent mindset that views casual promiscuity and drug usage as common pastimes while tending to the more important activities of videogaming and beer-chugging. And somewhere in all this, sweet stories apparently can be found and made into movies. Movies with man-boy schmucks who take an extra 10 years after the teenage years to officially grow up. Movies that swim in vain and profane babblings, only to say, “See? We’re men and we have feelings too.” But surely there are other ways of telling the simply sweet messages of love, romance, and friendship that these movies try so hard to convey. Are there no writer-directors out there with more wit, class, and charm than those of the Apatow gang? Must we continue to endure the perverse teenage antics of men and women well into their 40s?

Like all the Apatow-esque movies, I may have been somewhat entertained, but mostly because of low-brow shock value appealing to the “primal” senses. There is a part of me that sees these types of movies like small silver coins embedded with poisonous impurities, rendering them without value. To remove all the impurities would take so much effort and time that it’s just not worth it. Like that analogy that asks if you were offered some delicious brownies, but were warned that there were tiny pieces of dog poop in them – would you still eat the brownies? Would be okay with just a tiny bit of poop in your brownies? No?

Seriously, though, it may be an entertaining, raucous joyride, but Pineapple Express is not a good movie, in the moral sense, nor is it great-in-the-cinematic-sense either. But based on the filmmakers’ track record, I’m sure people will flock to it regardless of some critic’s opinion.

Unfortunately, if Apatow/Rogen builds it, they will come.

—-
Originally published on HollywoodJesus.com, August 8, 2008

Besides, the movie wants to move past that impossibility anyway (suspension of disbelief, right?), and into the fun stuff. Swing Vote isn’t necessarily about the likelihood of the above-mentioned phenomenon occurring; it’s about bigger things, things like the nature of freedom in America, the right to vote, politicians and their campaigns, and various issues that unite and divide America as a nation.

Ernest “Bud” Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a beer-drinking, blue-collar simpleton whose wife left both him and his daughter, Molly, for a Nashville singing career. Molly (Madeline Carroll), a precocious little girl who is passionate about politics and the preservation of her country, and unfortunately for her, Bud couldn’t care less, even if her were sober. Molly seems to be the parent in the relationship, taking care of Bud’s daily hangovers and prodding him to get up for work.

Molly is in constant frustration with her father’s apathy toward life and her interests, and is perturbed when Bud seemingly sets in motion an ironic, history-making turn of events where his vote actually ends up being the deciding factor in the election. This forces the Presidential candidates to campaign only to win Bud’s vote. Along the way we are treated to a satirical look at the lengths campaign managers and the candidates will go simply to get a vote.

How this plays out is both hilarious and sobering, as well as inspiring and totally enjoyable—thanks to some good storytelling and direction, as well as an excellent cast of talented actors who make this movie shine. The brightest stars on the screen, however, are Kevin Costner and Madeline Carroll as Bud and Molly. Costner has found a perfect role in the dimwitted Bud, and Carroll as Molly is a brilliant young actor whose performance almost brought me to tears at one point.

Like I mentioned before, though, Swing Vote is not a simple “voting is your civic duty” story. While the importance of voting is emphasized as both a privilege and a blessing in a great country, Swing Vote goes over the issues that affect daily life in America, and through the story reminds us how we can take some sort of action to better that life.

However, Swing Vote is careful not to play too much on the emotional arguments regarding various issues like abortion, immigration and gay marriage, making the movie all the more charming. There are a few emotionally charged scenes in the movie that give weight to the hilarity throughout, but within the context of the film, the story never speaks in self-righteousness.

At one point, Molly makes a simple yet convicting commentary about how much she appreciates her father at a “Bring Your Father to School” Day. Without giving too much away, Molly’s emotional message about her father is a hopeful and heart-wrenching commentary about the beauty and freedom of America, along with the tragic complacency and apathy of its people.

And rather than going down the typical Hollywood route and picking a more liberal stance, Swing Vote instead manages to poke fun at everyone on both “sides” of various issues. It carefully gives respect to all Americans, while pointing out absurdities in America’s political process. Although the mockery is at times absolutely hilarious, the film’s humor never ventures into the vile and mean-spirited. There is purpose behind all the fun, and it is carefully crafted into the story, with the goal of giving a message of hope and focusing on the (hopefully) common goal of compassion, care, peace, and freedom to all people (to all Americans, anyway).

In that sense, Swing Vote could almost be seen as patriotic (even the movie’s production design seems to have red, white, and blue hues throughout). There are many inspiring moments that make you think, “Wow, America is a great country,” and “Shame on me for taking my freedom for granted.” Okay, well, that’s a little simplistic; but you’ll understand what I mean: Swing Vote is an American story with a clear and powerful message.

It may be convicting in its truthful satire and simple wit, but it is also encouraging in that it promotes the hope that we can make a better country by actively changing (ourselves and our country) and refusing to passively observe our nation’s future unfold… not only for us, but for generations to come.

originally published at HollywoodJesus.com

I went in expecting a brainless action film, and twenty minutes into it, I was disappointed that WANTED met my expectations. I wanted WANTED to be a better movie. By the climax of the movie, the story becomes pointless when you question its logic or religious symbolism. By the end, I realized the movie is chock-full of action scenes, but a generally ridiculous, although entertaining, package of visual stimuli.

Based on a graphic novel (a.k.a. comic book) by James Millar, the story follows Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy), a bitter, broke office drone completely dissatisfied with his less-than-mediocre life. His day-to-day routine is spiced with frequent panic attacks, an obnoxious foul-mouthed office boss, and a live-in girlfriend who is sleeping with his co-worker and best friend (”best” implies some sort of good relationship, but this guy is a total jerk!).

Almost nothing seems to stand between Wesley and suicide until one night on a mission to score some more panic-attack medication he meets Fox (as in “crazy like an Angelina Jolie”), a tatted, wife-beater-wearing killer with a big gun and too much eye shadow. Jolie seems to like this type of more-fatale-than-femme character, the untouchable sexpot-with-a-gun. Seriously, the role of Fox doesn’t require much from her other than a bit of brawling, standing and glaring at things, occasionally with a finger in her mouth, and spouting terrible dialogue.

Part of that dialogue includes telling Wesley that his father was recently murdered by a fellow assassin and rogue member of The Fraternity, a thousand-year-old religious cult of assassins who take their orders directly from fate through a loom, interpreted by their leader, Sloan (Morgan Freeman). Wesley was apparently born with mad assassin skills and Fox recruits him.

So Wesley gets to break out of his shell and take control of his life, releasing his inner killer with the help of The Fraternity’s brutal training. He too begins carrying out the orders given by the loom of fate, eager to find the man who killed his father and betrayed the brethren

Wesley’s transformation is a bit extreme – from a passive push-over to a vengeful assassin. We’re supposed to believe that the knack for skilled murder has been inside him all along. I suppose it’s believable since from the beginning of the film, McAvoy convincingly plays Wesley with a seething, inner rage that causes the panic attacks when confronted with a maniacal boss or backstabbing best friend. Wesley just needed The Fraternity to come and set him free.

And this is where the not-so-subtle religious subtext comes in. Allow me to make some connections: The Fraternity (the church) is led by the prophet-like Sloan (Jesus), who sends the assassins (the 12 disciples) out into the world to carry out fate’s (God’s) orders found in the secret code of the loom (a sort of Scripture). Sloan even mentions to Wesley that the assassins are like apostles spreading their gospel.

Why do they kill people, you ask? Well, simply because the loom tells them to, silly. To be fair, though, there is a brief and emotional reasoning behind the no-questions-asked approach to all the killing. Because of a tragic event in Fox’s past, she has learned that what she is doing is actually keeping balance to the world, and Wesley must unquestioningly follow suit.

It’s hard to believe because you would think that fate or the loom would be commissioning the assassins to rid the world of the countless of criminals on the streets, rather than taking out random, high-profile targets in ridiculously complicated, acrobatic assassinations. Why must the assassins shoot a guy from atop a speeding train and bend bend the bullet’s trajectory? Oh wait, no questions, I forgot.

If you check your brain at the door – something I advise against since it only encourages the big studios to continue making seizure-inducing movies with weak and/or morally bankrupt stories – you can unquestioningly enjoy the high-intensity car chases, impossibly brutal fight scenes, the flying bullets with minds of their own, and a few unnecessary action scenes of slo-mo coolness. Because the film has been promoted since Fall last year and I’ve seen the trailers so many times, some of the better action scenes were not as fun when I finally saw them within the context of the film. But nonetheless, there are enough thrills to keep you watching.

Even still, to me at least, the most intriguing element of WANTED is the interesting pseudo-commentary on religion and its followers. Whether it was intended or not, the end result looks like an inverted gospel with the traitor as savior, exposing lies and hypocrisy. And that’s probably giving it too much credit.

As the story wraps up, you find that there isn’t any good news for anyone, no salvation, no real justice. Wesley decides to fulfill the movie’s tagline and choose his own destiny. A destiny that is built upon the acceptance (and then denial) of the apparent truth of fate’s whims and the word of the loom, but Wesley is in complete control. So there is a sadness among the carpe diem message where he triumphantly and vengefully chooses a way that seems right to him, as a line from an old Proverb says. WANTED forgets the second half: “but its end is the way that leads to death.”

• Read this WANTED review on HollywoodJesus.com

Kung Fu Panda chop-socks onto screens this weekend, and I’m already excited to see it again. Dreamworks’ latest animated film has big laughs, action-packed, kung fu choreography, and not to mention a big lovable panda bear named Po as the just-believe-in-yourself hero on a journey of self-discovery.

The manic Jack Black (Nacho Libre, School of Rock) lends both his voice and kooky mannerisms to Po, a panda who daydreams of being a kung fu fighter while slinging noodles at his dad’s noodle shop somewhere in an ancient China where talking, anthropomorphic animals once roamed.

Here the rambunctious Po is frustrated that his life has settled in the family business. His mind occupied with the local heroes, the kung fu-fighting Furious Five, Po dreams of being something greater than his food-loving lazy self.

Meanwhile, an announcement is made from atop the mountain where the Jade Palace stands: the time has come to choose the great Dragon Warrior whom, according to legend, will defeat a great foe and bring peace and harmony to the people. While everyone, including Po, is certain that one among the Furious Five will be chosen, Po unwittingly stumbles into the festivities and is seemingly chosen as the next Dragon Warrior by the wise old Yoda-like Master Oogway.

When questioned about this seemingly accidental choice, the sage Oogway smiles contently and explains, “There are no accidents.” Po is immediately thrown into training, much to the dismay and doubt of the Five and their teacher, Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). Resentful of this big black-and-white addition to their training grounds, the Furious Five (sparsely voiced by Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, David Cross, Lucy Liu, and Jackie Chan) live up to their name by shunning Po and hoping he’ll give up training after the first day. But Po’s determined, and he doesn’t quit.

This is part of the overall “just believe” mantra of Panda. Po must overcome the self-imposed insecurities, harness an inner force, and discover that in his greatest weakness, he can be the strongest. Yes, yes, a familiar underdog tale, but positive and entertaining nonetheless.

However, keep in mind that the movie’s message, mostly explained through Master Oogway’s bits of wisdom and advice, are definitely flavored with an eastern, Matrix-y “there is no spoon” seasoning. If you were to take Panda’s pseudo-philosophy to its fullest metaphysical extent, it seemingly promotes an atheistic, there-is-nothing-but-you humanism. I know, I know. Its just a movie. Or is it? Can it ever be just a movie?

I’m digressing now, but take the moral with a bit of salt and it can become a hearty discussion starter with friends and family.

Moving on, let me make it clear: I loved this movie. I admit, I am a bit biased coming from a background in cartooning with an appreciation for the art of animation and its storytelling possibilities. I do prefer 2D “flat” animation like the oldskool Disney films, but I also enjoy 3D animation, and Panda is a supreme example of why I love cartoons. From the awesome 2D intro to the 3D animation to the storybook art in the end credits, Kung Fu Panda is a delight to watch.

It’s the story that matters the most anyway, and the packaging is the entertainment value of plot points, drama, laughs, visual flair, and so on. Kung Fu Panda may not do anything new in regards to animation, but who cares? I’m not looking for the next great technology when I see a movie; I just want to see an entertaining film with a good story. In this case, we’ve got both. And whether or not you’ve seen this underdog story a million times before, Kung Fu Panda is a fresh and satisfying retelling.

Not to mention the film is full of vibrant color and amazingly detailed Chinese landscapes thanks to some kung-fu inspired art direction. We’re also treated to sprawling, frenetic fight scenes throughout, brilliantly choreographed and taking advantage of the animated medium. This combination of eye candy and action-packed kung fu fighting provides some memorable scenes like a heart-pumping face-off between the Furious Five and the big villain, Tai Lung; a clever little battle over some dumplings between Po and Master Shifu using only chopsticks is sure to have you cheering for Po.

By the way, Kung Fu Panda is promoted as a kids movie, but please don’t stay home because of that. It’s great entertainment for all ages. Besides the kid in all of us has to play once in a while, right?

Take your friends, your family, kids, neighbors, even strangers – this panda will have you coming back for seconds.

-

• Read the review on HollywoodJesus.com
• Read what critic, Roger Ebert, has to say about Kung Fu Panda
• See what RottenTomatoes is saying (hint: they love it!)

Indy is back and fans won’t be disappointed

I can only hope that when I’m 65, I can still leap off moving cars, dodge bullets, take a punch to the jaw, crack a whip, swing in to dropkick the bad guys, and still keep my hat on while saving an ancient treasure from the clutches of evildoers. Okay, so none of that will probably ever happen with me, but Harrison Ford makes it look so easy – he even does his own stunts!

That’s right, folks, The Fedora is back. Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones returns in the new film “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, the fourth installment in a franchise that began 27 years ago with “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. The Indiana Jones movies are the ultimate adventure stories from two of American cinema’s most creative minds, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.

It’s the 1950’s and Indy is still teaching archaeology at a university while tracking down ancient artifacts on the side. This time, he’s gotten himself involved in a Soviet plot within the jungles of South America to uncover the secret behind a mysterious artifact known as the Crystal Skull.

Spielberg and Lucas mix in references to the first three films, much to the glee of Indy geeks like me. The trademark tongue-in-cheek humor, the prolonged fistfights, the impossibly complex chases involving missiles, monkeys, sword fights, and screaming ethnic stereotypes (in this case, the Russians) to the tune of the famous John Williams score – it’s all there.

Speaking of tradition, Spielberg, who directs all four Indy films, publicly stated that he intended to stick with the original style of the first three films when he directed “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”. Notorious for refusing to go digital, he said that he preferred to stay true to the tradition of the older films, which may seem slower-paced to newer audiences. I’d say he definitely took a risk by staying old skool, but he pulls it off wonderfully. Spielberg is an awesome visual storyteller and he can still make Harrison Ford look good while punching a guy’s lights out. So much so that you end up appreciating the original movies even more and impulsively buying the trilogy box set at the nearest Borders for 20% off. Well, okay, so that’s just me.

The summer blockbuster wave continues with an epic and entertaining action-drama of warring mythical creatures and humans in “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” — the second film in The Chronicles of Narnia franchise, based on the hugely popular and classic books by C.S. Lewis.

If you’ve not seen the first Chronicles film, here’s a brief rundown of what’s going on: In a grand moral tale of sacrifice and good versus evil, the first movie installment of The Chronicles of Narnia series, “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (2005), introduces us to the Pevensie siblings and the land of Narnia, where animals and humans live and converse in harmony. With the help of the great lion, Aslan, they free Narnia from the clutches of the White Witch who had oppressed the land with a perpetual state of winter.

By doing this, the siblings, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, fulfill ancient prophecy, becoming the rightful kings and queens of Narnia. They rule the kingdom for many years before they are sent back to the ‘real world’ set in London during World War II.

“Prince Caspian” picks the story up a year later in the ho-hum of real life and school, where Peter’s picking fights, Edmund backs him up, Susan, the responsible motherly sister, tries to make peace, while Lucy, the youngest, holds on to the hope that one day they’ll return to Narnia. And of course, one morning while waiting for the train to school, they are suddenly transported back.

When they arrive in Narnia, they discover that 1,300 years have passed since they left, and the land is overrun by the human country of Telmar.

“Prince Caspian” starts off running, literally, as it’s title character escapes the plotting of his uncle, General Miraz, who seeks control of the Telmarine kingdom through his newborn son and the murder of Prince Caspian.

While on the run, Caspian unwittingly summons the Pevensie kids, the Narnian kings and queens of old. Together, with the help of the almost-extinct Narnians, they must battle the evil Miraz and restore harmony between Narnia and Telmar.

One of the central themes of Caspian is pride, power, and the downfall they can bring. Prince Caspian and Peter as High King bicker and cannot share power, and grow impatient waiting for a sign or help from the missing Aslan. Peter is also unwilling to listen to counsel. As a result, the Narnians don’t do well in the ultimate battle for survival, the crux of it all resting on a one-on-one duel between Peter and Miraz. After a few instances of defeat and retreat, Peter challenges Miraz to a duel to win the battle and stop the bloodshed among both sides. While neither side seems to do well, Lucy, who still has the pure faith of a child, simply believes in the goodness of the wise and benevolent lion, Aslan, and that he can intervene.

Director Andrew Adamson paces the film steadily with drama and anticipation leading up to the great stand-off between the two warring kingdoms. The movie is a bit slower-paced than an average family movie, but the moral depth, action, and great characters keep it moving and alive. Of course, much of the credit for this is due to C.S. Lewis’ source material, but props go out to the filmmakers as well.

Like a tamer version of “The Lord of the Rings” movies, the story and characters are rich and involving yet uncomplicated. The visuals of the film are wonderful, blending the live action with fanciful creatures like minotaurs, centaurs, talking badgers, and sword-wielding mice (check out Eddie Izzard-voiced Reepicheep).

I enjoyed “Prince Caspian”; it is a film for all ages. It’s PG-rating is appropriate in that there may be material in the film that will go above the heads of younger children, and some scenes may be a bit intense. This movie has both a great story and entertainment value, with depth that raises good discussion topics for both young and old. Pride, faith, humility, war, peace, corruption of power, and the consequences of our actions.

Perhaps “Caspian” isn’t as enthralling as “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”, but keep in mind that the latter is the most popular and beloved book of the series, so naturally, the first film may be the most cherished. The two movies are different, and “Caspian” takes place 1,300 years later, so maybe it’s unfair to compare the two. In any case, I think both fans and newbies will enjoy “Prince Caspian”. Even my friend with whom I attended the screening loved it and found it interesting even though he’d not seen the first film. So go see “Caspian” and make sure you rent or buy “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (preferably before), and get lost in the magical land of Narnia.

——–
I’ve started contributing reviews to HollywoodJesus.com, check out this review on their site.

The first of a few highly-anticipated blockbuster movies this year, “Iron Man” delivers us from the evil of recent months’ movie slump. Yes it’s another superhero movie based on an old Marvel comic character of the same name, but it’s an action-adventure worth seeing.

I was never interested in the “Iron Man” comics, but by the end of this movie I became a fan right alongside all the grown men suspended in adolescence decked out in “Iron Man” masks and tees surrounding me in the movie theatre.

The talented Robert Downey Jr. (”Zodiac”) plays the brilliant, wealthy, and witty Tony Stark, a poster-boy for the future of technology by day, Hollywood playboy by night (like a modern-day Howard Hughes, minus the extreme OCD).

I’ve always thought of Downey Jr. as a stellar actor, even physically delving into characters like Tony Stark down to the mannerisms, glances and posture. It’s so fun to watch him that I almost wanted to see more scenes with him as Stark than as Iron Man.

But I’m getting ahead of myself…

Stark’s billion-dollar weapons manufacturing company, Stark Industries, is rolling in the dough from U.S. government contracts, but one day while on a new weapon demonstration in the deserts of Afghanistan, Stark is kidnapped. While in captivity he is forced to build a new weapon in exchange for freedom.

“Iron Man” follows Stark through a mini moral conflict where he turns from being a frivolous indifferent genius to a pacifistic and remorseful guy who feels bad for creating such massive weapons of destruction. Rather than simply sitting back and questioning, Stark takes action and builds an armored super-suit to escape and begin his mission to give back to the world his products have so damaged. But don’t worry, the filmmakers don’t get too politically or morally heavy in such a breezy action film.

Director Jon Favreau, whose previous works include the wonderfully funny “Elf” and family-fun adventure “Zathura”, carefully paces the story and shows off more of his talent this time around with a fun blend of action, drama and wit.

“Iron Man” has everything you need for a pre-summer flick – thrills, laughs, great cast, good story, and stuff that goes ‘boom’. Towards the end it gets a little Hollywood-cheesy, but overall the movie is an awesome ride. Go see it, and I think you’ll agree: “Iron Man” is solid gold.

—————-
Have you seen Iron Man? What’d you think?

As long as you take everything with a swig of whimsy, “August Rush” is a delightful and inspirational story. It may not be a cinematic masterpiece, but it is good escapist entertainment, reminding us of the magic in life and music.

On a moonlit rooftop in New York, Louis, a charismatic Irish musician (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), and Lyla, a prominent young cellist (Keri Russell), fall in love to a street musician’s harmonica. After the most romantic night of their lives, through certain misunderstandings and circumstances, they are forced to part ways, losing all contact.

Years later, Louis has given up on his band and becomes a corporate business man, and Lyla becomes a music teacher who doesn’t play music, believing their unborn son was lost in a car accident.

Years later we find this child has grown into a musical prodigy, August, played by Freddie Highmore, and living in a boys’ orphanage outside of New York. His musical gift allows him to be in tune with the sounds of life all around him, from the wind through the meadows to the city sounds of hustle and bustle. Through all these sounds he believes he can hear his birth parents and that they want to find him.

This is where the movie asks you to seriously suspend your disbelief. August makes his way to New York City, and in a bit of “Oliver Twist” whimsy, August ends up in a ring of orphan thieves organized and led by a man called Wizard (Robin Williams).

Under the protection and tutelage of the weird but musical Wizard, the boy’s talent is revealed and developed. Wizard knows the boy is special and exploits the boy’s musical genius. August isn’t really concerned with any of it; he just knows that if he can keep playing long enough and loud enough he will somehow find his parents.

Freddie Highmore wonderfully captures August’s naivety and sense of wonder for the world outside the orphanage, and the unbridled passion in discovering a whole new world of music. Although it’s a bit obvious that those are not young Highmore’s hands in some of the performance scenes (particularly the guitar scenes), he still convincingly plays a boy enthralled with sharing his music.

It’s that joy and charm that wins us over. When Highmore’s smiling and performing, you’ll be smiling with him. And if you’ve seen any of Highmore’s previous films, you might have noticed he’s also a great cryer. He’s able to play his dramatic scenes perfectly, never going overboard, and even causing a tear or two in your eyes.

There are few plot points in the story that are just a tad too fanciful even for a fairy tale, such as August’s sudden compulsion to scribe a symphony only moments after learning a basic music note scale or that Wizard is a strange street musician living with a group of children from the street. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter — it’s the magic of the movies. Isn’t that one of the chief reasons why we keep going to the movies? To watch the impossible become possible? To see the unbelievable?

Not every movie can or should be a political message, profound sermon, or historical retrospective; sometimes the best movies are the ones that don’t try too hard. These movies, like “August Rush”, are the ones that make you leave the theatre with a melody on your mind and a smile on your face.