Reviews

I was a devoted fan for the first 2 seasons. Immediately I recognized it as a historical study depicting the English aristocracy and their dependency on those who served them, all under the same roof. Then, after full-recovery from heart surgery, I slowly lost interest. Since it now is a movie, I was hoping that it would reach out to a general-population-audience. Instead, it was simply flat and uninteresting . . . but well done, nevertheless.

I would have loved to see conversation between royalty and the Crawley aristocracy. None of that. The time period involves the late 1920's while Europe was going through tremendous social change and Britain, save for a few, remained basically apathetic. Any dialogue could have adequately suggested this. But no. Instead, of greatest concern is Thomas's unjust treatment for having been arrested in a 'molly house' as a pervert. Please. If you want to see a brilliant film set in post-industrial Salford, England about a17-year-old schoolgirl who gets pregnant and then befriends a homosexual,see 'A Taste of Honey,' 1961.

I'm somewhat amazed that Paramount allowed this project to flower. But, occasionally/rarely, artistic merit slips by the vast emptiness of a shallow, mass-driven market. Why? There are no insects attacking little people. There are no classic, easily defined antagonists or protagonists. The main character does not need to be played by Sean Penn, and the story depicts a gloomy future that earthlings will not find very pleasant. So why give it ten stars? Alexander Payne. As usual he provides a mirror for humanity to gaze into, giving us something to think about. I broke down in tears at the final scene. I got it. My son got it because he's very smart. The film satisfies both emotionally and intellectually. Don't see it if you expect relatively giant insects or sinister villains, although both are suggested in both image and within the screenplay.

I'm no prude by a long, long, longshot. But when I hear the lead actress declare that she has to take a "$#IT", I am somewhat taken back. Was that suppose to be cute? Did I pay money for my wife and I to see this? In 'Butterflies are Free', an argument is made by the antagonistic playwright/producer, "Heroin addiction is a reality." The witty answer to this, "So is diarrhea, but who wants to see it on the stage?" Who wants to hear it in a movie script?

Bad language doesn't bother me, but when it is applied haphazardly, apparently to evoke a shocking response, I realize the writer isn't too experienced and/or talented.

Other than that, the film was somewhat tedious.

I have sympathy for younger audiences who will probably never experience being mesmerized by a movie. As a 10-year-old in 1959, 'Ben-Hur' was an experience on the movie screen.

Faith-based movies are made by cash grabbers who know they have a market. At 100 million, it appears most of the money and time was put into CGI effects. Both the galley ship war and the chariot race were very well done. But the rest of the film displays some of the worse casting, screenplay, and directing that I've ever seen. The music score is uninspired.

Word is out that this film does better at centering around Christ. Non-sense. Jesus is presented in the new film almost as a cliché. To reveal Christ, the 1959 offering utilized subtle visual concepts to suggest Jesus' divinity. This in keeping with the novel's and the 1959 rendition's title: 'Ben-Hur; A Tale of the Christ'.

The ending is so profoundly adolescent that it is embarrassing.

Propaganda plays out in this latest Spielberg effort. At the start we see a Russian spy arrested by the FBI. He is a most pleasant fellow played by Mark Rylance. Evidently typecast for the part, he is as soft- spoken and sincere as he was in 'Angels and Insects'. With a pleasant, Scottish brogue, he exhibits a spy with profound integrity. The depiction of the American response to his escaping the death penalty is embarrassingly sophomoric (Actually, as I can remember as a teenager, there was little or no public outcry at the sentence). The incompetence of American military intelligence is also depicted (70,000 ft wasn't high enough for the U-2 spy plane to avert being shot down). But military incompetence has always been an easy target, especially to a liberally biased Hollywood. Nonetheless, it is well-crafted and enjoyable. And, propaganda evens out as we see the Berlin Wall erected, and the consequent brutality of Soviet tyranny.

The following review is from a orthodox, fundamentalist, born-again, filled-with-the-Holy Spirit, water baptized, sanctified, stereotypical Christian.

It is ironic that a movie like 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' can deliver so inspiring a masterpiece of cinematic artistry and masterful story telling, and yet be about relatively nothing, (except that the end credits suggest a homage to the Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig) and, at the same time, the film 'God is Not Dead', with such an important message, is anything but a vehicle of insightful and inspiring cinematic story telling. But gone are the days of 'Inherit the Wind', Elmer Gantry, and Ben-Hur.

Rather, I got what I expected: The typical 'Trinity Broadcast endorsed' attempt to show an unbelieving world the reality of God. And it does this with the very familiar 'three-subplot device' with the main story dispersed equally throughout. Non-believers will be offended, most likely, as their supposed arguments for the non-existence of God are dismantled by a freshman student who is challenged by his philosopher professor (who is a God hating, self-described atheist) to present a rebuttal to his philosophical assertions.

The title of the film is certainly a philosophical challenge to those who are atheists and to those who might be curious. But it is more an inspirational film for Christians who have accepted the Bible than it is a evangelical device.

Its characters are basically stereotypical so to make it simple. (Complex people don't exist anyway). And at the end we are treated to a Christian Rock Concert just after the main antagonist is run over by a speeding car (depicted rather graphically). Though I was glad to see him repent on his death asphalt,something just didn't quite fit when the next shot is a horde of Christians rocking out at a concert.

In any philosophical or evangelical attempt to justify a belief in God, you should never stack the deck. (Hear that Ray Comfort.) Stringent non-believers will only have more ammo under their belt after seeing this hackneyed contrivance. For Example:

Student to professor, "Then how can you hate something that doesn't exist"? (referring to God). The professor stands silently frozen in philosophical quandary as the students gasp, and the movie observers applaud. All he had to say was: "Because I hated what I then began to realize was wishful thinking . . . what I now am convinced is but a lie." Instead, the film rests on the first scenario as being an illustration of profound philosophical argumentation. How embarrassing. I am sick of seeing the Christian faith so belittled. Especially when the title is most likely used as an attempt to lure in the skeptic.

You can't bring a thinking man to Christ by setting him up argumentatively. This is what this movie does. Yes, God is not dead, except in the minds of certain movie makers desiring to make a profit on the 'God' issue.

'Carnage' is a one-act play. Unlike other movies based on plays, its depiction is more "play-like" than usual. However, this does not diminish the film at all. In fact, like opera put on film, it can give us visual perspectives that otherwise would never be realized in observing a live production on stage. Essentially this is why it is delightful when plays are adapted for film.

As plays often go it is typically metaphorical. Each character represents an aspect of humanity, and their association to one another portrays an underlying axiom. It is not difficult to presume what this is, even at the onset (unlike Albee's 'Woolf'). However, we are left with an ending that is purposely abrupt and open-ended. Due to the underlying premise of the story, this is justified.

The underlying premise is that human beings, no matter how well-intentioned, often make things worse when trying to resolve problems. A derivative of this is that many people who are well-intentioned are often the last who should be involved in the problem-solving process. Application of this human predicament is left to the viewer to infer. The most looming of all the world's problems resides in the Middle-East, so it is easy to presume where the underlying premise can be applied, and hence, the possible incentive behind the writing becomes evident.

Also inherent is the consensus that if Americans (married couples representing opposing ideologies) can't remedy their own problems (their children's conflicts) then why should they be involved in the affairs of the world?

Starring Jodie Foster (Taxi Driver), Cristoph Waltz (Water for Elephants), John C Reily (Chicago), and Kate Winslet (Titantic)

The brilliance of this film rests more in its masterful, cinematic story telling than in the story. It is exceptionally well crafted. The editing, screenplay, and direction will most likely be winners at the Oscars.

As for the story, one can sum it up quite easily. A Harvard computer-application genius is rejected by his girl friend so he channels his sex drive by denouncing the female race through blogging and hacking Harvard's internet system. This generates 22,000 hits in just a few hours and he becomes famous, but is promptly put on academic probation. From there he uses the school's website as framework for Facebook in which he questionably violates numerous ethics, and eventually law itself. The legal inquiry is meshed throughout stunningly. In the end we see the youngest billionaire in the world sitting alone with a lap-top, sending a Facebook "Friend Request" to the girl he had revengefully humiliated in his internet blog at the beginning of the film. One can associate this to becoming a victim of one's own creation.

The film runs for two hours, but seems like 1 1/2. As suggested above, this is more likely because of style than story - except for the possibility that we all use, and are also likely victims of Facebook.

'Inception' has already been defined by its makers as a mixture of James Bond and 'The Matrix'. I was hoping that it would be more, and it was, but not as much as I would have liked it to be.

Conceptually it was fascinating. Dreams are fascinating in themselves, and the idea of being able to enter and manipulate the sub-conscious has been around for awhile in movies: 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Dreamscape', 'The Cell', and 'What Dreams May Come'. The best of these is 'The Cell', which spins a horrific tale. Yet, as a dream-concept film it is the most visually interesting because it gives us the kind of abstractions that are associated with dreams; abstractions that can make sub-conscious sense, particularly to the dreamer. 'Inception' initially depicts some dream abstractions, but conveniently overrides this by introducing the 'dream architect' whose job it is to make the dream as real as possible.

As a result, as our actors jump through dream levels, in which there are four (psychology has determined there are primarily two sub-conscious levels) we observe commonsensical realities - for the most part. Although this is significant to storyline development, it unfortunately means that we are left with familiar visuals (chase scenes and shoot'em- ups) that merely differ from level to level. Soon we find ourselves watching two to four recognizable action scenarios that are implied to be transpiring simultaneously.

Since this can present the possibility of confusion for the viewer, the film often becomes visually redundant and subsequently monotonous. This was the major flaw of the film, so much so that I almost nodded off. Myself.

Yet, the concept of the film overrides this flaw, and much of the imagery is particularly stunning.