Change Your Image
rhhdvh
Reviews
An Honest Liar (2014)
Spoiled Story
For me, this is a movie about a great professional magician, sadly spoiled by a secondary personal relationship plot line introduced about 1/2 way though. This action erases the early cinematic and plot perfection leaving the whole experience flawed. The movie started aimed at one outcome, but then switches to a different target. The switch comes across as contrived, sort of a mixed metaphor.
The genre switches from comedy to tragedy, without an epic hero; the second half tragic protagonist is not Randi. The movie shot a lot of scene arrows, but at different targets, unnecessarily watering down the entire effort.
I came away liking and profoundly respecting the art and science of James Randi, who is quite the magician in his own right and time, turned detective and debunker of charlatans. His personal life was artfully dealt with at first, then paraded like dirty laundry when it wasn't. Maybe the storyteller's intent was to debunk the debunker, but the magic of the reveal was lacking, not consequential, but incidental. Therefore, the original comedic genre became a tragedy without pity or fear.
I recommend it for the first half alone, the part about the Amazing Randi, his acclaimed magic and debunking. Still, maybe walk out 1/2 way though when the protagonist shifts character unnecessarily in a spoiling way, turning a great wine of a movie sour.
Do You Believe? (2015)
Votes don't match the reviews
I question the value of IMDb Ratings when the average rating is polarized, with a dominant percentage (43) at 10, and a significant percentage (29) at 1, with very few in between.
The actual user reviews are highly favorable, with only 3 highly unfavorable. So, there are just a lot of trash voters too lazy or inarticulate to really review the movie to give their reasons, just the thumbs up or thumbs down minimal input.
My wife and I decided to go see what it was all about, especially with a couple of former "A" list actors involved.
The divided vote was reflected by the content's portrayal of real life; how the stories of 12 people converge one night. The perspective is of how life intertwines, good and evil, comedy and tragedy. For us it evoked a lot of emotions, as we had several parallel stores in our lives. Broken relationships, disease, death, depression, violence, the gamut of human condition that have us questioning God.
Some of the characters had a common guiding principle in their lives, others only their own benefit. Still, life went on and paths crossed changing some character's opinions based on actual experiences.
For us the aggressive plot moved along at a quick pace, the character development was a but sketchy because of the 12 stories, but in the end it all fit together. Lots of tears, more of joy than sadness.
From our perspective it was very well done for a low budget Christian movie, obviously appealing to those who believe, and perhaps graphic and life like enough to set an example for the critics when they come to a life bridge to cross.
Heaven Is for Real (2014)
Surprisingly pleasant in contradiction of critical reviews.
Wow, after reading the reviews that are at the extremes, I really didn't know what to expect. But I like to judge controversy for myself and so when the title came up at the $1.50 Theater we went. Surprisingly, the smaller auditorium was about ½ full. What a delightful movie, so far and away from what I was set up for by all the disparaging - bordering on hateful comments and low ratings. It makes we wonder if the low raters even saw the show, or have hearts of stone; their reviews discredit them. The movie is about a local minister, in a small church, who works several jobs to make ends barely meet, married with two small children. His parish loves him and life is marginally good. But then his four year old son gets a burst appendix, and their whole life gets turned upside down for fear their son will perish. The minister screams at God, his faith tested to the core. A pray chain is set up at the church, in the town, and the boy narrowly pulls through. Everyone is relieved and life gets back to normal. Or so it seems. But then the four year old begins innocently to reveal to his father, that he had had an out of body experience, and provides details of heaven, like seeing his father screaming at God in the hospital chapel. Over time, the boy continues to relate more material so that the father consults a psychologist who discredits the actual encounter as normal memory tricks. Somehow the news leaks out of the family, to the church and community, and public controversy ensues. What to believe? Yet still more and more facts come out from the child that could not be known to the child except from his encounter; that then convince the minister of heaven's reality, from his son's innocent testimony. The minsters faith waivers, but then finally returns to belief. The movie is a real tear jerker. The plot moves quickly and steadily; the acting is superb, the child priceless. It ends well, a happy ending and faith is explored. For me, it was a pleasant surprise and in all a fine little low budget movie that witnesses faith with honest reason and doubt. Definitely worth the $1.50 and the time.
God's Not Dead (2014)
If you understand the premise, then the movie makes its point
Obviously, from the polarized reviews, this movie has a lot of proponents and opponents. I should say I have worked in highly technical scientific industries, read quantum physics, understand Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, and have gone to great lengths to understand the God argument (in graduate school.) Before getting to the movie, let me say I detect a pervasive flaw in the largely male opponents "bad" reviews. They actually take an anti-Christian position, when the movie is about God, not Christianity, per se. Atheists, in the US are not really atheists, they are anti-Christian. Actually, in the early post apostolic Christian church, they were persecuted for being atheists, because they were monotheistic, not polytheistic like the pagan society at the time who believed more in reason. Today, over 92% of people worldwide believe in God. In fact, Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham. In the middle east recently, I noted that their murder rates were about what they are in the U.S., except that over 1/2 theirs were honor killings, by male fathers of female children, who were oppositional. That a Muslim father in the US would banish his child rather than kill her over switching to a Christian God is benign treatment by middle east standards. Anyway, the movie's collegiate scene presentation is fairly accurate, coming from the friend of a humanities professor. Probably 80% of philosophy and religion professors are "liberals" like the one in the movie. I also serve as a college trustee, so I have first hand knowledge to support that view. Also, from a scientific standpoint, quantum physics is tending toward confirmation of a God, these days, not as theory, but through experimentation. Quantum leaps and non local connections and a variety of other data contradict the God is dead position. Lastly, the rebuttal presented by the student, soundly refuted the professors arguments, again and again. This is not my opinion, but that of countless scholars who have painstakingly counter argued the movie professors list of God is dead Theorists. I deducted points from my ranking because the low budget film plot was a bit wooden. The student's presentations were well documented, and argued, but his graphics were unbelievable. The prof's deathbed acceptance for me reinforced the position that most atheists, are really spurned former Christians - anti-Christians really. Still, it seemed a bit contrived. Lastly, Christians today are a minority, and believing in One God stand apart from society as a whole, self-separated as they have for a couple of thousand years. They have always been persecuted and will continue to be. But in the US, we are still a country where freedom of religion is respected, in spite of a majority of pseudo scientific "atheist" anti Christians liberals who disagree. The movie made its point. For the vast majority of humans in the world, God is not dead.
Noah (2014)
Noah, anacronistic chaos, a tossed salad
My undergraduate degree is in history, my work is global manufacturing technology, and I am a seminary student, besides being an avid reader and a movie goer. An anachronism is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. The Noah movie narrative and plot didn't follow "The Book" and the movie characterizations and settings were in the main using modern and not period norms, so much so that it came across for me as muddled. I am in Seminary and just completed study of Genesis, including the Noah story, our common ancestor. According to my renown professor, the Bible is a bifid, meaning it has two parts. So does the creation story, Genesis 1 and Genesis 8, the "World that Was," and the "World that Now is." The before flood plot has five parts: the Creation, Adam, The Fall, Conflict of Seed, and Judgment. The comparative after flood plot five parts are: the New Creation, Noah, the New Adam, The Fall Renewed, Seed Conflict Renewed, and the New Judgment. Just picking the story up with Noah, leaves out the ability to compare the pre-and post-flood stories. Comparison is the basis of human thinking, and is a fundamental biblical message. So, watching the movie was like seeing a half, but not the whole, progressing by walking on one leg, kind of jumping all around. Then, too, the half story is told itself in part, so that for me the movie narrative only vaguely follows the "Book", and therefore comes across as a disjointed effort. Added to the plot distraction, was the wide use of anachronisms. There were so many out of place elements, that for me they constantly interrupted the coherence of the movie. For example, the Nephilim. The obscure term best described as "giant," appears but twice in the bible, once in the pre-flood narrative. Yet, in the movie, they become central characters (to sell the action figure rights?) Tubal Cain was a biblical metal worker, but he was not on the arc. And Noah, his three sons and their wives were aboard the arc in the biblical account, except in the movie two wives were missing. The one son's wife got pregnant and miraculously delivered in 40 days (that's how long the arc was on the waters.) Noah wanting to kill his granddaughters was a movie fiction. The movie clothing and implements were all of modern manufacture. There was a modern furnace on the arc, and anesthesia was used to sedate the animals! The new garden vineyard drunkenness "fall" takes place at the sea side! All this incoherence left me unsure of what I had experienced. For these reasons, not following the book, and the anachronisms, the movie comes across to me as an olio, a cinematic hodgepodge, a tossed salad.
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
Life sucks, then you die
Some dramas are just plain tragedies. Thus is Llewyn Davis, flawed character. I suppose he is portrayed as the hackneyed starving artist, actor musician, plying his craft, never getting a break. But he is deeply morally flawed. His music is good but as moody as he is. He lacks good decision making skills in his choices, beside the immorality. He disses others, audiences, competing musicians. He takes advantage of friends, trudges through life and fails. He reflects badly on life and life echos that back at him. He doesn't progress spiritually, and perhaps regress and his outside world follows suit. Others are portrayed similarly, acting selfishly, achieving pathos. The experience is basically a downer, and I am trying hard to understand why it is rated so high by users and critics. I suppose because of its cutesy subtle touches here and there. (no spoilers) Nice cinematography. Great music. Well done period setting. Great feeling of depression in script, characterization, and pace.
I suggest going immediately afterward to see saving Mr. Banks to get lifted up again.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
The pot calling the kettle black?
Hollywood liberals take their best swipe at Wall Street liberals. Still, the old saw applies: you have to be one to know one. Is there really a clean end of a turd called art? I am no prude, still this rendition of the depravity of Hollywood excesses, projected into the Wall Street excesses leaves one feeling violated. The audience laughed, because it was reviled to an extreme, so that the laugh was preferable to vomiting. Try as you will, you cannot roll in manure and come up clean. Most people recognize that depraved behavior in the end is destructive, to self and society. Why spend hours examining excrement? Is the critical merit ascribed by critics and users alike, that the movie is so repulsively done that it makes it art? By Hollywood standards, it seems so. The movie actually did what the characters did, it stole from viewers for its own excesses, to make money and achieve notoriety. They tried to portray filth without becoming filthy themselves. That's an illusion. How sad a commentary on an aging director, and a failing industry. Yet we the public eat "it" (this crap) up. What a sad commentary on us. This movie is beyond tragic.
Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)
Where's the movie?
My wife and I toured the Hyde Park estate this summer. Being a History major in college, I was naturally attracted to the movie, especially since Bill Murray was cast as FDR and in trailers, portraying the character in jaunty fashion.
What a disappointment and waste of talent and cinematographic resources this vapid plot and script represented. It kind of extracted out of FDR's considerable legacy, leadership role, and life time heroic challenges, an historically unsupported fiction portraying him solely as a philandering raconteur.
For liberal Hollywood, taking on a democratic powerhouse, the motivation, to sort of analyze his excrement, to the complete exclusion of his greatness begs explanation.
The move seems to me like a waste of time, talent and backers and my money for lack of a story.
Much more is to be gained by watching Netflicks two part documentary series that painstakingly accurate historically and faithfully portrays the anguish of a man struck down by polio before his rise to greatness, as our first handicapped president, yet addresses the dalliances, too, in perspective.
Premium Rush (2012)
Strap yourself in and go for a ride.
I like movies that say what they will do and do what they say. Premium Rush is an action thriller. There was a real adrenalin rush. After the movie, my wife was tired from the tension throughout. There was a plot, a very believable villain, a buffoon, romance, friendship and love. No lulls. Fine acting throughout by each character. Excellent direction. Extraordinary action cinematography. The best acting performance was the bad cop. Great tension moments. The secondary characters were very well cast. The characters were not made up, but real for the roles played. The clock was always ticking, and there were several flashbacks, double backs on the story line, that added dimension to the plot and characters. A true non-stop action thriller.
Catch .44 (2011)
Second level of meaning just a little too obscure
Usually, there are two levels of meaning in movies like in a parable. The obvious story, and one just underneath the surface, like a physical and a mental level. The underlying meaning here was just a little too obscure for this viewer to get it full in the first viewing, but still I think it was there. The protagonist in the end won, because she had a realistic view of life, and how to play it. Her two friends lacked the necessary intellectual acuity to navigate and survive. So did the two antagonists. My co-viewer didn't like the flashbacks, but unannoyed I found them a little too fast for me to digest the actual dialog, and understand the arguments in the debate. Still, I recognize that the battle of mind over matter was the core teaching. The one who thought they could win, won.
Superman Returns (2006)
New believable technology, awesome powers with a strong human values
Well done. Modernized and updated technology. All characterizations less hyperbole, and more believable. Excellent casting. Kevin Spacy as Lex Luther a more credible villain. Parker Posey although type cast again, still brings fresh dimension to her character. Kate Bosworth, less of a ditz and more of a dedicated professional with a love - hurt relationship with Superman. Brandon Routh makes a perfect transition from Christopher Reeves, while maintaining his own persona. Same familiar music in new arrangements. New twist to the Lois Lane relationship, love at its heart. Great photography, and blend of animation. The flying scenes at times had more wonder in them. Great family and human values at the core; right conquers wrong, good over evil. May be one of those the you can watch over and over again. An enjoyable film.
The Break-Up (2006)
More tears than laughs
The movie was mis-advertised as a comedy, romance. Instead, it was a well acted tragic drama, with the opposite of romance, indifference. Vince had the classic character flaw of lack of commitment and surrender to his love. The couple had "lived together" for years - she wanted his love and submitted to him, worked the relationship; he was the classic "What's in it for me type." Totally self centered. Enjoyed the one way love. She demanded a real reciprocal love. When she did he bolted, into his dominant have to win mode. Great dramatic scenes. A heart jerker. No surprise ending to a move titled "break-up." Dishonest advertising and billing is the reason for the low rating. Could get acting awards.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
And, what? Or so what?
Fabulous cinematography, fascinating places, still, in the end a film to no-where. Afterwards, you are saying to yourself, huh? No mystery, no suspense, no truth, no values. Watching was sort of like eating sunflower seeds, a lot of work but no meat. The film came up short of expectations on almost all fronts. It didn't follow the book very well. The casting was not credible, the acting dead pan, really flat. It took little advantage of the depth of talent of the cast. Except maybe Ian McKellen, whose character is self centered evil to the core throughout, and ends up a defeated raving lunatic. Still, for him, that's probably more his natural persona than acting. Tom Hanks falls far short of a Harrison Ford professor portrayal. Audry had none of the verve of her Amelie role or even her Senay role in Pretty Dirty Things. Jean Reno's "Leon" talent completely suppressed. The film lacked PASSION! Speaking of which, the whole promise of some great revelation undermining God or His Son Jesus Christ was so clearly fiction, that the film came across as false advertising. National Treasure, or any Indiana Jones film can be watched repeatedly and deliver great entertainment. This film is more like a handsome man or beautiful woman of allure, until they open their mouths and a hollow inside is revealed. For mystery or suspense novel/movie seekers this one will leave you unsatisfied on most any level. You feel cheated. Still, great cinematography.