Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Saturday, May 1, 2010

I am apparently unable to talk about anything other than dirt.

So. I've been out a while. School and all that. But I'm still thinking about dirt, which I'm sure is exciting to a total of one person in this world. Namely me.

Dirt is life and death: death out of life, life out of death. When things die they hit ground. Bunches of little beasts eat them, die, and fall apart into dust. One of Danny Boyle’s movies told me that 80% of dust is human skin. Everything dies into dirt. Dirt is death. Every living thing pulls its life from the ground. Dead dogs are eaten by worms and flies and members of phylum Zygomycota. They die, and crumble into dust. A man comes, and dead pieces of him fall off in invisible flakes of skin while he cuts the dirt in two with an iron sword. The man drops in round balls that look dead. Water drops fall from clouds and shatter on the dirt. Seeds take nutrients from the dirt and live – they pull death from the soil and make it green life. Months later, this plant too will die, its hard labor ripped away and the stalk cut down. And the man’s wife will grind and knead and feed her family with bread, bread grown from death, life out of the dust.

We become dirt. Dirt looks better when we adorn it, like a beautiful woman wearing diamonds. It’s a mutually beneficial existence. Dirt in the wild is great, but not like earth that is cared for, tilled, and cultivated. It’s not the same. At the same time, the soil of overworked, overfarmed land is one of the saddest sights in the world. Drained of all life, it holds no promise, only sorrow. It’s true, though, that the untouched dirt of a national park is good like the Sabbath is good, that the pristine white sand of Pensacola is beautiful, but we need six times more earth to balance it out. Good earth. Dark earth. Black with minerals and nutrients and promise and growth and rot and hard work and death and life. We are becoming to dirt.

Dirt becomes us. A man is at home with his fingers in the dirt. Perhaps it’s my Southern roots, but I think there’s universal respect for a farmer, for a man who plunges his hands in the soil. Those who don’t like getting their hands dirty aren’t people I want to be around, speaking in the most general way possible. We need to be touching dirt. There’s a labor of Hercules in which he tries to defeat Antaeus, the giant who is immortal while touching earth, that should ring true for us (perhaps far truer than the Enlightenment would have us think – are we not just that way?). After all, “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” Why is it that the most disturbing shot in every Western the toes of the cowboy’s boots dangling three inches off the ground beneath the lynching tree? Why does it always work? Why do people in space begin to deteriorate from the inside out? We need dirt to survive. If we leave it for long it leaks out our bones and muscles and we die. There’s a reason being hanged is the most disgraceful possible death in almost every ancient culture. Go, says the judge, go be pulled away from what makes you human, what you are most like in the universe, and be held there until you can’t breathe anymore while everyone watches you. Dirt is becoming to us.

God became dirt. Infinite beauty and power and love was bound and wrapped and pressed into clay that walked around on the earth and was hungry and hurt and cried and grew angry. Matter has never been created or destroyed, the great lords of science tell us. But the apostles chuckle and say that they’re wrong. A few trillion molecules are missing from this universe. Because Christ rolled away the stone from His resting place in the earth, and stepped forth in a body of dirt made new. And it’s not here any more. And so I must believe that there is dirt missing from this earth. It’s remade, renewed, purified of all remnants and scars of death, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

Dirt becomes us. Dirt was what God took and breathed life into. Dirt is what makes up our skin, our bones, and that little thing next to your small intestine called appendix. Dirt is made up of molecules, and some of those molecules are sucked up by roots into most everything. Grass. Wheat. Grapes. Some of those molecules go into cows after being grass. Wheat molecules become flour, then bread, and the grape similarly becomes wine. All of our food, at some point, came from dirt, and so all that we physically are came, sooner or later, from dirt. Dirt makes us better – Christ healed the blind man with mud. He called Zacchaeus out of sin into life: out of a tree and onto the dirt.

We become dirt. When we are done fighting with air, pulling it down and letting it out of ourselves, we are laid to rest. We sleep in the dirt, surrounded by the dust that we were. There we give up trying to hold the dirt we have. We give it back. And that’s the economy of the Gospel. Give up what you have. Give everything you have to others, and it will come back to you. Give up your pride to Christ and He will give you a real reason to be proud. Give up your strength to the dirt, from whence it came, give your bones back to the ground. And, one day – even so, come quickly Lord Jesus! – dirt will be raised up and pressed into a true body, one without decay or sin or death, and the breath of the Spirit will fill it with flame and purified, clean, unshatterably beautiful, you will stand made new in the World made new. An Earth made without sin, made with no thought of death, on dirt washed pure by the blood of Christ.

Monday, March 2, 2009

I wish you a happy holiday



In other news, this should surprise anyone who has spent their entire lives locked in the storm cellar. As a side note, I just love it when the BBC gets all self-righteous on American news. It is really, truly amusing.

And the other breaking story in "New News," da Dow is doing not so good. 7000 is, apparently, the bottom of the bucket for stock markets. And Washington is giving another $30 billion imaginary dollars to AIG! Which also makes me laugh.

By the by, Slumdog Millionaire is incredible. Danny Boyle is among the greatest directors of all time. His ability to tell a story is simply unfathomable. I'll be posting a more substantive review soon.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

I catch the general public up

So it's finals week for most of the collegiate world, and we are no exception. While I have plenty of work left to do and it's pretty early, I thought I'd take a sec and update everybody on what's been going on. 

1) Not to toot my own horn, but so far I'm batting 1000 on my movie predictions. The Day The Earth Stood Still got panned so badly it made Twilight look good. 

2) I think if I nail every one of my prophecies regarding upcoming film, somebody should buy me lunch. 

3) So it was a little chilly tonight: 











4) This excites me to just short of no end. 
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD


5) The word "epic" hasn't really been creeping into the general vocabulary of our class so much as violently hurling itself, leaving behind it a trail of devastation and laughter. 

6)  Rob and I will be running like madmen (at least, I will be) down the concourse of the New Orleans Airport towards nine or so frantically waving people in approximately 114 hours and 48 minutes. Not that I'm counting. 

7) I am very much looking forward to Tim Tebow running all over the OU defense and destroying that poor sap that got the Heisman. 

8) Blackberry waffles hot off the iron, topped with cold syrup, and flanked by pepper bacon and cheese scrambled eggs, is pretty much the ultimate brinner. 

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

I Take an Open Poll

Go to the comments, and tell us your favorite movie of all time. If you can't pick one, pick three. That's all. In 48 hours or so, the three of us (right Swede?) will post our top one or three. The 6 or 7 most common movies will get put in that snazzy little sidebar poll thing, and so we will determine the movie most loved by the readership, so then we can bash it more than the rest, and so further alienate the people we enjoy.  Sounds like fun, eh? 

No but seriously, I think I'll do this once a year or so and then we can see if our overall tastes change. Also, we get to make fun of each other for our favorite movies. It will be amazing! 

Monday, October 27, 2008

I am in da haus, jah?

Below are four videos from the YouTube. If you're an acquaintance of mine or Rob's, odds are you've heard phrases from any or all of these thrown around some. If, Lord help you, you're a friend of either of us, you just thought we were overusing our own wit. Little did you know we're not even that clever, we just were quoting someone else's humor. So, there's one video below from the film Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead, and three from the same series of Volkswagen commercials. Oh, and those commercials will probably change your life. Just so you know . . .

Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead - The Questions Game




Volkswagen Golf GTi-Mk5: Commercial 1


Volkswagen Golf GTi-Mk5: Commercial 2


Volkswagen Golf GTi-Mk5: Commercial 3

Thursday, September 4, 2008

A whole new meaning to "deadly"

By popular demand (sort of, not really), I am now going to write a post dealing with the issues raised by the movie "Seven". This is not a movie I would recommend to the weak of heart, and this is not a post I'd recommend to anyone avoiding spoilers. In other words, don't watch the movie if you don't like gory stuff, and don't read this post if you would be mad if I gave away the ending. This being said, let's just dive right into it shall we?

Actually, there's too much plot for me to adaquately explain it all. Therefore, you can disregard what I said earlier because I'm just going to assume that you've already watched the thing. What's that you say? Why not go back and delete what I wrote earlier? That's a stupid question. I'm not even going to answer that.

I thought the movie was well thought out, excellently shot, and masterfully acted. The contrast between the characters of Somerset and Mills is perfect. We know astonishingly little about their biography so we learn about them through their reactions to the events of the movie. Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is a calm character, an experienced detective who wishes to retire because he no longer wishes to view the filth of humanity under a microscope. Mills (Brad Pitt) is a young and cocky detective who is very quick to annoyance and anger. The story moves quickly through the murders and the movie leaves very little time for character development. I think this is, however, a device that is intentionally employed by Fincher and Walker. They force their audience to make the same kind of assumptions about the detectives that "John Doe" (the murderer) makes about his victims. Our knowledge of the characters is shallow in almost the same way as our knowledge of the victims and their sins. I think it's partly a critique of the narrow mindedness of people who appoint themselves as judges of other people's sins. Perhaps, the director is trying to make the point that judgment is not that simple.

The director leaves the audience in an awkward position when he ends the story with Mills killing John Doe, as Doe himself urged him to do. "Become Wrath." And Mills did exactly what Doe told him to do, he became sinfully wrathful and killed Doe himself, rather than let him be justly punished for his wrongs. So, the audience must fill in the aftermath themselves, and give a verdict upon the outcome of the movie.

Were the "ritual killings" just, based upon the victim's deadly sins? Was John Doe justly punished for his crimes and sin of "Envy"?

My answers would be no, and no. John Doe went wrong when he thought that he could act as God, it was not his job to punish the wicked. And I don't think that's what the Roman Catholic church means by "Deadly Sins."

Sunday, August 24, 2008

I am Rob's questions of "what did I just watch"?



I watched a very interesting movie the other day. I needed to unwind after a day of studying so Kaleb and I rented and watched "Fight Club." This is, by far, the strangest movie I've ever seen and my thoughts on it are not solidified yet. As a result, I'm going to treat you to my thoughts on the matter and I simply ask you to bear with me.

I am going to summarize the movie's themes a little for those of you who haven't yet had the pleasure of subjecting yourselves to "Fight Club."

The movie seems to be about the shaky personal identity of modern consumers. The modern media and the ethics of consumerism have trivialized life to such a degree that no one truly knows who they are anymore. A name is not good enough, a name is simply an identifier; it's not an identity. My parents could have named me something different and it is conceivable that I would still be the same person overall. Even if I can trace my family name to two or three hundred years back, I have not truly learned anything about me. There most be something else, something more basic that defines me as a person.

It seems to me that people tend to define themselves by their religion. If someone asked me "What are you?" I could answer in a number of ways but I would probably answer with "I am a Christian. I am a child of God, born in sin but redeemed by God's grace - the blood of Christ." My identity as a Christian is the most meaningful and the most identifiable thing that I can point to illustrate to others what I am.

Consumerism is essentially a religion in disguise. For quite some time people have been inadvertently turning Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness into a very redundant list. This is, perhaps, a strange way of saying that people are slowly equating these three terms. And sadly, many people equate "the pursuit of happiness" with "getting as much stuff as we can." Therefore, these people believe that life (and the job of the government) is about being free to acquire as many possessions as possible.

Since, consumerism is a sort of religion it follows that people would tend to define themselves using its terms. However, consumerism only manifests itself in people's material possessions. So, in the same way that I identify myself as a Christian many people inadvertently identify themselves with their possessions. But because this identity is hard to illustrate to others they simply decorate their lives with a myriad of possessions and people will slowly start to figure out what kind of people they are. So the movie asks: "What if you lose everything?"

Spoiler warning: I might not be able to resist telling you the ending

The movie is a psychological drama. The film makers invite the audience to enter into the mind of a man who goes for days without sleeping. He is a recall coordinator who has to travel all over the country doing inspections. He describes himself as being a compulsive buyer of household items. He tries to solve his problems of identity with the kinds of things he uses to decorate his house. After trying to solve his problem of identity with his possessions he tries going to numerous support groups to get a high off of sympathy and crying. This fails when he realizes that there is a woman attending all of his support groups that obviously does not have the diseases the support groups are for. He ends up going four days again without sleep and this is when some part of him rebels. He begins to develop an alter-ego named "Tyler Durden" who personifies rebellion against established consumerism, radical existentialism, and charisma. Since we are seeing everthing through his eyes, the film makers very successfully make the audience think that Tyler Durden is a real person. Tyler Durden blows up our hero's condo and forces him to redefine his life. He has imaginary fights with this person (while really simply beating himself up) and sets up clubs all around the country called "Fight Club." This is where all the men who are sick and tired of their normal consumerish lives go to beat themselves up. Eventually, these clubs form into a terrorist organization called "project mayhem." Project Mayhem's main goal is to destroy everything that makes a modern consumer's life possible. Although, our hero remains involved with "Fight Club" project mayhem evolves without the knowledge of the first personality (the one who imagines Tyler Durden) and thus his alter-ego does things which he cannot control. He rigs up all the buildings of credit-card companies with demolition explosives and manages to get all civilians out of the buildings through the extensive "Project Mayhem" network.

As the story progresses, our hero becomes more and more like Tyler Durden (as personified by Brad Pitt). Even though the two characters stay separate (in a mix between Multiple-personality Disorder and schizophrenia) he begins to act more like his alter-ego, the man he wants to be. When he no longer needs his alter-ego, he shoots his alter-ego through the head (don't ask me how this works) and becomes an authentic human being, defined only through his actions - the marks he made on the world.


That's just what I think about it. This by no means exhausts the subject. I could be completely wrong and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about it (especially the part where he shoots himself in the head and he manages to survive, but Tyler Durden disappears; that was weird).

I am helping cure racism . . .

By posting this.



NB: Please don't go randomly clicking on Flight of the Conchords videos, dear young readers. They can get rather mature rather quickly. And by mature I mean immature yet dirty. Funny, isn't it?

For legality - I downloaded this video using Google video. I'm obviously not using this for profit, just to make a few friends laugh. And this is easier than getting the embed thing off youtube, etc. I love the flying conchords, and if this is infringement I'll pull it at once. I just don't think it is.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

I almost screamed "What just happened?!"

So on the fourth, being the extremely patriotic family that we are, the Trotter family spent the day organizing, scrubbing, eating, reading, and painting that closet in my room a very un-American earthy brown. The most patriotic thing we did, other than light a grand total of 6 sparklers and say the first 10 or so words of the Constitution, was to watch the Boston Pops on TV for a grand total of 3 minutes.

All of this aside, we watched Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium. I saw the disc and said to myself, "Oh. Crap." And then it began.

The first two acts of this movie blew my freaking socks off. Dustin Hoffman, people, deserved an Oscar for that role. I don't care who they gave it to . . . dangit, they did give it to Daniel Day-Lewis. And he did deserve it. But they should have given two! Anyhow, he was incredible, the cinematography was brilliant, the storyline was imaginative, fun, and absolutely childish. I've never seen such a frank, beautiful, endearing portrait of magic in film. The score left a little something to be desired, but I'm no stickler on such matters. Point being, the story was set. Even Natalie Portman gave the best performance of her life, even though that says nothing. She actually did better than in The Professional.

Then the third act came. The final chapter in the story. And the whole thing goes to pot. In one single line, the whole movie comes crashing down from profound Chestertonian, Christ-centered truth to soul-crushing new age zen-ism. "You are the block of wood!" made me think that the original director must have been fired on the last day of filming and they stuck Timur Bekmambetov behind the camera and told him to film without letting him look at the rest of the movie. That's how bad it was. I almost cried.

As a unit, Emporium is nothing. A trivial, man-centered, zen-riddled waste of time. As the first two acts with the third forgotten, it is amazing. Hoffman embodies the words of Lewis: "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness." From calling his accountant "mutant" to having his friend smuggle a tuba into his hospital room, Hoffman shines. That scene where he weaves in and out of the barrels. Brilliant.

Overall rating: 8.0 out of 10
Watch for: Nothing. Cleanest movie I've seen in several long whiles.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

I was like, freakin' blown away, what do you think?

Last night Justin, Pounder and myself watched Napoleon Dynamite. It was the first time Pounder or me had seen it, and I was rather unsure of what to expect. I wanted to like it, I expected I would like it, but there's always this reserve I feel about any film, particularly a comedy, which is either praised to heaven or given the bird.

I freaking loved this movie. The entire thing was wonderful. Jon Heder was brilliant. He deserved an award for that role. Jamie Foxx got the Oscar for Ray that year, and that is an injustice. If I were president of the AFI for a day, I'd knock Jamie Foxx's double-exed self so hard when he came to he would be blind, and then I'd grab that Oscar and hand it to Jon Heder and he will say, "Dude, did you get this from Jamie Foxx?" to which I will respond, "Heck yes I did!"

The wonderful thing about Napoleon Dynamite was that it scrupulously avoided having a point at all. A few times Uncle Rico borders on hitting profundity, and once even Pedro endangers the delicate balance of this piece. He asks Napoleon why the school won't let him hang a pinata of the resident cheerleader/social queen Summer for his supporters to beat on. You feel like the next words out of his mouth are about to be, "because they all beat on me, why can't I beat back?" and then the whole thing would have a point. Which would be a disaster. People criticize this movie for having no plot. Justin says that the more he watches it, the more of a plot he sees. I'm not buying. I think the movie can't have a plot and do what it does. It captures an average high school in Swillwater, USA. The life of a teenager isn't always fraught with complications that are bigger than how to get a girl to look at you. I watch movies about high school and you wonder if any of these people on screen have ever been there. I felt like these directors had. They know the whole thing made absolutely no sense. And so Napoleon Dynamite, like a Chaim Potok novel, really has no beginning and no end. There's a progression in the life of the people you meet, but you never really accomplish anything in the movie. It's the journey there that is so gosh-darned funny.

Overall: 9.2 out of 10
Watch for: Sparse foul language, rude humor, a fair bit of suggestive dialogue - including conversations about bust expansion on women, complete with visual demonstration, and Uncle Rico's advances on both his clients and Napoleon's love interest.

Monday, May 26, 2008

I was entertained after I realized that it was, in fact, crystal.

So this afternoon the fam and I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I walked in expecting, nay, desiring to hate this movie. It had all the characteristics of a movie I should hate: it was a long-awaited and totally unnecessary sequel, it was a 4th, it had Shia LaBeouf, it was totally unrealistic, it involved swordfights on moving vehicles, and it was about aliens although it claimed they weren't aliens. All in all, it should have been utterly insufferable and I should have given it Josh Gibbs' ultimate insult (that is, walking out 10 minutes before the end). But it wasn't. I was entertained. No, more, I enjoyed it. Harrison Ford is convincing as an old man. I don't think any actor of this day other than Sean Connery can so effortlessly pull this off. We all know Bruce Willis can't, Samuel L. Jackson can't, and I can't stand to watch Pierce Brosnan try. For the first time, I didn't just respect Indy, I loved that dude. When Shia's character said, "You're a teacher!?" I was like, "Dude, I was thinking the exact same thing!" But I had to get past the nuclear blast survival, the constantly missing KGB machine gun fire, the fact that aliens landed with the Incas and yet they were beaten by a few freaking Spaniards, etc. When they first see the crystal skull (which turns out to be the actual skull of an actual alien or, as one of Indy's colleagues says, 'a trans-dimensional being'), we are told by the man himself that it is quartz crystal, cut across the grain, which is apparently impossible by human methods. It would have been all to easy for me to hear, "it looks like crystal but it . . . just isn't." But it was crystal. Once you realized that these beings who were all-powerful, all-knowing, and were stinkin architectural geniuses using stone age tools, had bones made out of quartz, just like what's under our feet, you had the movie in your grasp. And after that, army ants devouring a guy in 3 seconds flat is icing on the cake. And did I mention Cate Blanchett has a black bob haircut? Anytime I can see Elizabeth I dressed up like some twisted sort of archetypal Gestapo torturess, complete with knee-high leather boots, it's worth 6 of the coldest.

Overall rating: 7.5 out of 10
Watch for: A scattered bad word or two, lots of bloodless violence (typical Indy style: fists and . . . well, fists), and the realization on a younger person's face that Indy had a child before he was married.

Friday, May 23, 2008

"Fat Ass"

I recently re-watched "The Shawshank Redemption" and let me just say, that is one of the best movies I've seen. But that is not why I'm writing this blog post. I'm writing this post because of one character in particular: the one Captain Hadley kills because he was crying in his cell.

In the movie this character was referred to by the other inmates (Heywood in particular) as "Fat Ass". Since this is the case the credits have him listed as "fat ass".

How would you like that? You know he has to want to tell people that he played a part in "The Shawshank Redemption". But then the poor guy has an awful choice to make. Does he admit to his character's ignominious name (sorry for such a big word), does he lie about his part, or does he simply not mention his role in the movie? I guess he just has to tell people that he played the part of "fat ass". But gosh, how's that for eternal remembrance?

I wonder if that nickname stuck with him. Are people to this day referring to him as "fat ass"? If so, how much of an incentive is this to improve his physique in regard to his posterior tissue and general excess of flab?


Now, I realize that these people have a tough time thinking up names for extras; but come on. They could have called him "Man with a rather large posterior" or, uh. . . "big guy bludgeoned by Hadley". Ok, ok. Those wouldn't fit. But they've gotta figure out something other than "fat ass". This is a person's self-esteem we are talking about. Oh well, that's life I guess.