"Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"

Fantasy is a powerful tool that brings us out of our reality and into a place of maximum control, typically to ultimate gratification. Our fantasies are the controllable wishes that directly contrast the out of control aspects of our lives. Fantasy often happens in places of pain or boredom. Fantasy serves as a coping mechanism to pain, whereas in boredom it often reveals our hearts by illuminating our desires and wishes. Fantasy is unplanned, which is why it typically happens in the moment of the stressors themselves.

When do you find yourself fantasizing most often? What do you fantasize about? For those of us struggling to make ends meet, perhaps it is fantasizing about what we imagine as an affluent lifestyle. For the timid, fantasy may be about walking into a bosses office, parent’s home, or other authority figures presence and displaying boldness. For Clarice “Precious” Jones, she fantasizes about being adored.

“Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire” is the story of an African American woman in New York named Precious (played perfectly by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) who is the victim and survivor of countless abuses. The film begins with a set up of Precious environment – her home, dominated by a monster of a Mother (played by Oscar winner MoNique, who more than deserved her awards), her school, and her neighborhood. We then see in painful detail all manner of abuses including emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse – including incest and rape. However, an opportunity comes into Precious life that she bravely follows through on, carrying the rest of the story forward.

The direction and style of the film really took me by surprise. I was not expecting the editing, direction, and music to be so effective. Jump cuts, exits from reality to fantasy back to reality again, and music all richly texture the film. Acting is uniformly great – Real life experience with some form of abuse on the part of the filmmakers impact what we see. The performances truly authenticate the story. If the actors were directed poorly and overacted, played too flat, or were otherwise unbelievable, it would have sunk the film. The movie was obviously created with passion.

But why sit through a film where abuse of any kind is portrayed in any manner? That’s a question only you can decide for yourself (and be warned, this is a tough film to sit through), but the film attempts to give a hopeful climax in the midst of utter hopelessness. Precious is not merely likable, so much as she is so lovable. Perhaps it is the message that in spite of any experience you have been through, you have the choice to rise above it. Is healing possible after experiencing such monumental pain? If so, where is this healing?

It would be a mistake to assume that this film is about poor minorities (especially African Americans) or is a “black” movie. It would be a mistake to assume that “those people” portrayed in the film are the ones who have this sort of universal life for themselves – the poor, the ethnic group you only spend time with through television, or the teenage Mothers. It is a movie I believe that anyone can relate to because abuse is not defined by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Most of all, we can relate to this film because at its core, it is about love. Precious wants, needs, and deserves love. Love of, from and for herself.

“Precious…” came out around the same time as “The Blind Side” and they share two powerful themes – that love and education are forces of healing that are not equaled. Education is enablement, love is empowerment. In addition, each film challenges viewers about the personal human story. When we encounter people, we don’t know where they have been or what role we will play in their story. Just as importantly, we don’t know what role others will play in our story. I am grateful to be moved and reminded of such truthful things after seeing “Precious.”

Green Zone

Someone just tried to make Call of Duty: The Movie

In “Green Zone,” Matt Damon plays a soldier in a specialized unit trying to uncover the whereabouts of WMD’s in Iraq. However, all of his intel is coming up fruitless, much to his frustration. Before you can say Sarah Palin, Damon goes rogue. He then spends the rest of the film hunting down the whereabouts of WMD’s, being confronted by nosy reporters, encountering the locals, fighting soldiers, and dealing with opposing political forces within the American and Iraqi camps.

Yawn.

On paper, “Green Zone” does have ingredients to make something good. Paul Greengrass directed two Bourne films and made a legitimate masterpiece with “United 93.” Matt Damon can show his talent, and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for “Gone Baby Gone.” Brendan Gleeson was honest and balanced in the offensively fun “In Bruges.” Greg Kinnear is also capable of delivering good performances as well. Yet, everyone seems to be going through the motions, making a film without much passion.

For a modern warfare movie, “Green Zone” feels awfully boring due to just how familiar and stale the proceedings feel. While there are a couple of legitimate action sequences, they rarely rouse or maintain tension. Problematically, the reuniting of Greengrass and Damon swiftly recalls images of Jason Bourne, while the shaky cam cinematography plus grainy appearance make it look and feel like a half baked Bourne sequel. There is even a close quarter’s combat scene much like the book-fu fight in the Bourne films. It takes away from much of the uniqueness that the film may have tried for and undercuts any message about the conflict that may have been intended.

What “Green Zone” did do was narrate much of the cultures current view of the conflict in Iraq. We were sent for good reason, got betrayed, feel misled and lied to, and now are endlessly cynical about what Government tells us. We question why we are there, what the purpose is, and while attempting to unite a divided Iraq have become divided ourselves. When the end of the film finally rolls up, the “message” is hardly revolutionary. What you expect to happen probably will happen.

This is not to say that “Green Zone” is a bad film, so much as it is a tired film. It’s competent, but merely so. The acting, cinematography, and action feel recycled and borrowed from better movies. If you’re itching for some war or action, check the Netflix selection instead.

The Hurt Locker

Addiction is a powerful force that drives those caught in its grasp to do illogical, selfish, and moronic things. In search of the next high, addicts stop at nothing. The drive and compulsion consumes and manipulates the physical body, the critical mind, and the sensitive heart. What once was too potent is not enough. Addiction can take the form of sex, drugs, alcohol, and as “The Hurt Locker” points out – adrenaline.

“The Hurt Locker” is about a group of soldiers in Iraq whose daily job is to dismantle roadside bombs. In the film, we watch them deal with their last 38 days of active duty. The three men each have unique characterizations. Sgt. Sanborn is a solid, level headed thinker who appears to be a fearless soldier with his wits about him. Spc. Eldridge is more timid, appearing to be aware of the possibility of death at every corner. Then there is Sgt. James. Sgt. James is an adrenaline addict.

After an incredible opening sequence, director Katheryn Bigelow sets the tone and makes some ground rules. First – no one is safe. Second – everything is game. As a result of the first sequence, it is anyone’s guess as to what will happen next. Since the stars of the film are not typical A-listers (which is smart casting for this film), I developed a different attachment to the events on screen.

Bigelow uses every object on screen to create tension. I found myself looking at objects and movements on screen guessing what role they might play in the film’s events. Is the phone just a phone? What about the videocamera, or the seemingly desperate man and his claims in the city square? As a result of the tools at Bigelow’s hands, everything has the possibility to create tension. She mostly succeeds in creating the tension in nearly every frame.

However, the film began to fall a little bit flat to me due to its logic. I began questioning how Sgt. James got away with so much broken protocol. Surely, in a film about soldiers and war, this man – who is supposedly a brother with his fellow soldiers – wouldn’t act so recklessly putting them in harms way, right? And wouldn’t his commanding officer reprimand him instead of praise him for some of his decisions? Or what about the stupidity of staying in place when the person occupying it before you was killed there by gunfire? It just doesn’t make sense.

But after thinking more about the film, it became clear that “The Hurt Locker” is as much about the psychology of an addict as it is about the psychology of the US armed forces. Dismantling bombs plays out like getting more and more intense hits off of a drug – each man is playing with something that could destroy them in a heartbeat. Too much exposure or too many risky decisions, and death is certain. The parallels to substance abuse are everywhere.

But simply dismantling bombs is not enough of an adrenaline high and things get riskier as the film moves on. It becomes clear that Sgt. James is not dismantling bombs in service of his country. He is doing it in service of himself. Each successive bomb situation is approached with greater degrees of intensity, increasing the amount of adrenaline pulsing through Sgt. James veins. To say much more would be spoiling a lot, but the things Sgt. James does becomes increasingly riskier. He goes to get his high at the risk of not only his life, but the lives of his fellow soldiers. He is out of control. It is not about following protocol, it is about getting fueled and high on adrenaline. With this view, my thoughts about the “The Hurt Locker” grew more appreciative. The film is more concerned about the characters than it is about right or wrong.

On the imdb.com message boards for the film, people who allege to be soldiers or familiar with the world of the armed forces point to how unrealistic much of the film is. Should this be true, I find it disappointing that Bigelow didn’t take better care of some of the details in the film. More authenticity would have made the film stronger. However, what we are left with is a really good movie with lots of tension and energy that shows patterns and parallels of addiction.

Avatar

I just don’t understand cross species love.

I wanted to love the King Kong remake, but I couldn’t buy a romantic plot between a human female and an oversized gorilla. When Family Guy episodes focus on Brian the dog hooking up with human females, I don't laugh. It’s like asking me to believe that I could fall in love with a horse. In fact, what if someone made a full length movie of Mr. Ed where the plot hinged on Ed’s burning desire for his keeper’s wife?

Talk about forbidden love…

In “Avatar,” James Cameron’s sci-fi special effects opus, a marine who is lacking the use of his legs gets hooked up through sci-fi machinery to become a Na-Vi (as in “native” – a blue alien creature that is an obvious reference to Native Americans). He becomes them to learn about and ultimately exploit them. That’s because their home sits amongst a highly valuable energy source on their planet called Pandora. Things get all twisty though when our hero falls in love with the people, ways, and an individual of the Na-Vi.

No mention of “Avatar” is complete without talking about the amazing technology the movie employs. “Avatar” is visually dazzling and it makes a good case for 3D films. It looks (mostly) stunning with bizarre winged creatures, insects, and horses. The rainforest type setting with light up flooring a la Billie Jean is lush and imaginative – we believe it could actually exist but recognize it as alien all the same. In addition, the human’s technology and aircraft all look inspired but somehow familiar. Cameron’s Pandoran world is grounded in enough reality that it never feels so far away.

But as good as “Avatar” looks, we’ve seen it before. If “Avatar” were a book, you probably would be bored. This is a tired story, filled with obvious allegories and unintentionally humorous stereotypes. The American’s (though I don’t recall nationality ever being mentioned – it’s an organization run by a corrupt company) march in to get a much needed but costly energy supply. The company has no qualms marching in and destroying a civilization with their own customs and ideals to get this energy source. The company tries to reason with the Na-Vi but they can’t do it and get exactly what they want. So, when one tribe/culture/person won’t work with your country, what else to do but use lots of firepower and brand them terrorists! (The line “we’ll fight terrorism with terrorism” even makes an appearance from a crazy white guy drunk on the mission). It felt too obvious and silly.

While the story is ultimately uninteresting, it is obvious that James Cameron is a gifted director when it comes to action. The climactic ending sequence is riveting, even though it is fairly obvious about how the movie will end. The scenes are shot coherently and cleanly, and we never have to wonder just what is going on (there are even multiple “300” type slow-mo sequences that probably made Zac Snyder blush). I also feel the need to mention that James Cameron likes blowing up large objects. Cameron goes titanic on a massive tree delivering similarly spectacular results and devastation.

Spirituality is also a big component of the film. Like the believability of Cameron’s visual world where things look like ours but aren’t the same, the spiritual connection he strives for is Pandoran but it borrows from a lot of animism. The trees, animals and flowers all seem to have souls and spirits. It is perplexing to me that people find a spirit inside nature but somehow are closed off to the idea that nature points to its actual Creator. Granted, the people and world of “Avatar” are made up, but we are kidding ourselves if we don’t recognize that all creative endeavors inherently express some type of worldview.

It would be unfair to say that “Avatar” is like a beautiful woman with no brains, because “Avatar is not a garbage film. “Avatar” is just an average film. No amount of visual pop and creative 3D can overcome how tired the story felt. How could I be held in suspense if the ending was in plain sight before it happened? How am I supposed to care about the characters if they feel like stereotypes that have little depth? And seriously, do you really expect me to buy into a love story between an alien and a human (complete with a brief sex scene)? Sci-fi and fantasy enthusiasts may get more out of the experience than I did, but once was enough for me.

Christopher's top 11 Favorite Films of the Decade

Any perusal of the internet will reveal a fascination in top 10 lists. As many others have, here are my top 11 films of the decade. There are some honorable mentions that didn’t make the cut like About A Boy, No Country for Old Men, Amelie, Children of Men, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and There Will Be Blood. There are also films I have yet to discover – like The Hurt Locker, Moon, and so many foreign and independent films I didn’t make the time to see.

For the last decade, movies grew from being an engaging curiosity, to hobby, to full blown love which I have attempted to integrate in my professional life. In the past 10 years I learned about people like Federico Fellini, Martin Scorsese, Sergio Leone, Terrence Malick, and Jean Pierre Melville. I found the Criterion Collection, which gave me an excellent entry point into the world of movies that demand thought, introspection, and conversation. Movies have flowed from entertainment vehicles, to pretentious art house snob lingo, to simple joys I love sharing with others.

This list will be called “Christopher’s 11 Favorite Films of the Past Decade.” The key word is “favorite.” These are all films that left a mark on me and ones I have in the past, and currently do recommend anyone to see.

Punch Drunk Love (2002)

“I have a love in my life. It makes me stronger than anything you can imagine.” – Barry Egan

While the films are in no particular order in terms of favorites, “Punch Drunk Love” is undoubtedly my favorite of the decade, perhaps even of all time. “Punch Drunk Love” is the film I associate most with my wife. It hit me in ways no other film has – I found Adam Sandler to be relatable in a curious way with his awkwardness, yet tunnel vision determination. The feelings communicated in the movie – protection, aggravation, romance, anger/violence, and confusion – are all feelings I experienced to various intensities when I fell in love with my wife.

I am also one of the 7 people in the world who owns the soundtrack. I mean, how many of us would go out and buy such an ethereal, bizarre set of sound and play it on a regular basis? Well, I did – and Jon Brion’s remix of “He Needs Me” hooks into my skin like few other songs. The whole experience of “Punch Drunk Love” is uncomfortable, surreal, bizarre, unsettling, and yet completely aware. When I first fell in love with Colleen, I knew very shortly that she would always be the love of my life. I can’t explain that kind of love. No other film communicates falling in love in quite the same way, and it will take a filmmaker with acute awareness to pull it off again.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

“Have you ever fired 2 guns whilst flying through the air?” - Danny Butterman.

I have seen no movie which has entertained me more in the past decade than “Hot Fuzz.” The actors look as though they are having fun, the story is fun (if surprisingly suspenseful and gory), and the pay off at the end is among my favorites ever. If you get bored at all during the film’s excessive running time, hang in there for the (literally) explosive ending.

I tried “Shaun of the Dead” before “Hot Fuzz” but hadn’t seen the zombie movies it lovingly points to. I hadn’t seen the movies “Hot Fuzz” points to either, but the film does it for you. There are scenes from Bad Boys 2, Point Break, and other absurd action flicks interjected throughout the film to humorous effect. It’s the perfect homage that manages to also make light of its referenced materials. It is also the most entertaining movie I have seen over the last 10 years.

American Splendor (2003)

“You might as well know right off the bat, I had a vasectomy.” – Harvey Pekar

No film wowed me with originality in the way “American Splendor” did. “American Splendor” is the true life story of a man who uses comic books as a means of coping with his bizarre life. This includes a world filled with illness, love, attachment, and above all – a bitter soul. Or perhaps brittle soul is more like it. The main character is played in perfect pitch and tone by Paul Giammatti, an incredibly gifted actor when he wants to be.

But the originality in of the film is in its blending of mediums. “American Splendor” combines documentary, animation, and drama to drive the narrative. The story couldn’t be told nearly as well with a traditional structure, as each of the typically alienated storytelling mediums intertwine just where they need to. The movie is emotionally affecting, especially the final scenes and even though we are in Harvey’s bitterness, there is something loveable about Harvey and his world. Ordinary life is indeed pretty complex stuff.

The Station Agent (2003)

“Would you do me a favor and not look at me right now?” Olivia Harris

Community is a topic I am endlessly fascinated with. How do we connect with others? What does it take to be vulnerable about pain and suffering? Who do we laugh and play with? “The Station Agent” is a lovely movie with great humor to go with its more painful moments. A dwarf wants to get away from the attention he is getting from the world and so he moves into an old train station his former boss left for him. He ends up being swallowed up in relationship by a talkative Cuban man and a grieving white woman.

What follows is simple and affecting as the three talk about their lives and spend time with one another. It’s the soul of the film that works. It’s a perfect mixture of genuine acting, great writing, and meaningful story. It’s the stereotypical “gem” of a film that is simple, yet difficult to pinpoint. It also happens to be a must see.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

Sally: “We came over to sit.”
Hazel: “That's what people do when tragedy strikes.”
Sally: “They come over, and sit.”

The first time I saw “Lars and the Real Girl” I was disappointed. I was expecting a “quirky” comedy. But future viewings revealed that “Lars” is no ordinary film. It is honest, and it perhaps the most perceptive film I have ever seen about attachment and relationships. To add praise, the therapy scenes are written better than any I have ever seen in a film. Not to mention just how sweet and loving this film is.

“Lars” gives a mythical, unreal picture of community and love, alluded to in its first lines spoken in a scene at church. People all over the film show how they project much like Lars into their own dolls, stuffed animals, and action figures. It equates Lars as a person with everyone else, rather than making him some kind of outcast. It poses a question I hope I am always asking myself – what would it take to love someone right where they are at without agenda?

Brick (2005)

“Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you.” – Brendan Frye

Watching “Brick” in the theater was a rediscovering of why I love movies. It was original, intense, and strangely believable in spite of its otherworldliness. If Stanwyck and MacMurray were teens, they may have been cast. But here we get the kid from “3^rd Rock From the Sun.” However, Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the few actors whom I have gone out to see other films as a result of his performance here.

The real story is first time feature director Rian Johnson whose screenplay is a rewatchable masterpiece that takes several viewings for people like me to appreciate. For the uninitiated, imagine if the classic 50’s film noir was updated in Orange County with only the dialogue intact, but the scenery is modern day. It’s kind of how I might describe “Brick,” a brilliant mystery that keeps on giving over and over again.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

“Nobody tosses a dwarf.” - Gimli

“Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” took me somewhere I had never been before. It is possibly the only film I could endure at 3 hours for midnight showings in the theater. It is amazing. The characters are dealing with life and death, love and fate, and they are doing this on an epic adventure. I was so taken in by the story and scenery that it was impossible for the 2^nd and 3^rd installments to top the first dip into the Middle Earth.

So much has already been written about these films, so I’ll just say this: If you haven’t seen “The Lord of the Rings” yet, you are a fool.

Waltz With Bashir (2008)

“Pray and shoot!” – Ari Folman

“Waltz With Bashir” is a devastating reframe of war, soldiers, and healing. Ari Folman created an artistic masterpiece – an animated documentary which details his experience in an Israeli conflict, that I admittedly don’t understand. And that’s okay, because while the history of the conflict is not something I am intimately aware of, Folman’s story is about how he experienced, forgot, and remembered war. It is his story, not a chronicle of the war itself.

How does one animate a documentary? Folman did it by interviewing subjects from his past, trimming their statements into a screenplay, and then he had each person (with exception of a couple who refused) re-speak their lines into a microphone. Once they recorded their lines, the animation told the story. The movie works as a surreal journey into war by confused soldiers who aren’t the machismo brotherhood so often emphasized in American war films. Yet, it is the films jaw dropping finale that left me crying and so struck with emotion. It is a sequence that will forever be in my memory. It will affect you too.

Lilja 4-Ever (2002)

“I'm not your property. Think you can buy me? You can't buy me. You can't buy my heart and soul.” – Lilja

Didn’t see “Lilja 4-Ever” in the theaters? That’s because you can only rent it through Netflix. Unlike “Trade,” another attempt at making a film about the horrors of human trafficking, “Lilja 4-Ever” has a certain X factor. It will scar you. It is like a horror film where the main character is trapped or being chased, except Lilja’s horror – being smuggled into human trafficking against her will due to poverty and desperation – is very much real for thousands of people.

I saw the film in a Pepperdine University auditorium for a school event. Students later told me they were scarred for life. I am too. But human trafficking should scar us. We need to be frightened, reminded, and scarred by these stories because they are true and real. Of course, this wouldn’t be effective if the story wasn’t told so damned well. We are trapped with Lilja, and the eye covering point of view shots from Lilja are among the most disturbingly effective any film has ever created.

Monsters Inc. (2001)

“Mike Waszowski!” – Boo

It’s hard to know which Pixar film to select because all of them are amazing movies (“Cars” being the exception). They aren’t amazing animated movies, so much as they are simply amazing movies. “Animated movie” has a certain negative connotation to it perhaps due to the association of “kid’s movie” and “animation.” But Pixar is different – each of their films has something so uniquely special – “The Incredibles” as metaphor for family system, “Up” and its out of nowhere opening, or “Ratatouille” and its metaphor for Disney and quality storytelling.

Yet of all their films, “Monsters Inc” is perhaps my favorite story. The reason is because of “Boo.” She is adorable, and animated so convincingly in her mannerisms (not to mention the utterly perfect voice acting). It may not be the most beloved in Pixar’s suite of films, but it is certainly my favorite.

The Fall (2006)

“Are you trying to save my soul?” – Roy Walker

No film wowed me in recent memory as much as “The Fall” did. Every scene is a freezable piece of art that is filled with overwhelming visual power and beauty. The film was filmed in many countries over several years by its director and it makes no use of CGI. When I saw the film and what its director Tarsem Singh created, I couldn’t help but be sucked in visually and aurally.

It’s a pretty amazing story as well. Think of it as a clever “The Princess Bride” with a Getty Museum flair. If you have a bluray player, don’t see it any other way…unless of course that way is in the theater. An absolute must see.

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon"

Typically when I write about films, I try and do it from the perspective of what can we take that might be personally enriching. In the case of Twilight, this is me writing and having fun. Please excuse my diversion for a moment...

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is about a 104 year old pedophile who falls for a 17 year old personality-less emo girl. In this fascinating installment, children with supernatural powers turn into wolfs, speak in tongues, and walk around shirtless. They also have super awesome long hair, fix motorcycles, and find even more reasons to not wear shirts. It’s awesome. The reason all of this on screen trickery occurs is because of head scratching codes and a love story for the ages.

Particularly, the ages of 12-15 years old.

To say that I did not resonate with “New Moon” would be the same as saying bananas do not resonate with hot mustard. The movie is two solid hours long and painfully slow. There are about 3 action sequences that divert from the chatter, but that’s about it. It is a very talkative movie that says absolutely nothing at all. One particular scene where Bella (the love interest, played by a wooden Kristen Stewart) and her maybe/possibly lover Jacob (some guy with a fantastic hairdo) talk in her bedroom goes something like this:

“I can’t do this”

“You’re saying no?”

“That’s right…no”

“So…you are saying no. I don’t know”

“But it must be…no”

I am paraphrasing here, but not by much. The line delivery is so stilted and overly serious, I thought George Lucas stepped behind the camera and yelled at the actors by saying “Be serious guys! Let me see serious” just like in the second Star Wars movie where Natalie Portman and Haden Christensen hilariously talk about Natalie’s sandpaper skin. It’s hard to know if it is terrible direction, or terrible acting, which is a bummer because the film is directed by the guy who made “About A Boy,” a personal favorite of mine.

While others around the globe have fallen in love with the story, I don’t get what makes the story so good (at least in this film version). The vampire and werewolf mythologies are tiny footnotes that could otherwise make this fun. The leads are uninteresting in spite of their supernatural hot sauce, and Bella has virtually no likeable qualities.

Logic also has to arrive at the front door of your mind at some point as well – Why is it that a 104 year old remains in high school? He could always maintain his secrecy by going to college if he were really that bored…And why in the hell is he picking up on teenagers? Doesn’t that kind of disturb anybody, at least comically? You know, the fact that the guy is 104 and he is picking up on 17 year olds? And if you have lived on the planet for 104 years and met Bella in all her drama, wouldn’t that be more of a turn off as opposed to a life long romance?

The movie becomes distractingly bad when we observe the cast. 5 years from now, this movie will be irrelevant and it is ripe for SNL and South Park parodies. All of the music and style is so self consciously hip, it grates the pace along. The vampire females all went to the Vidal Sassoon academy for a haircut before they appeared on screen. They wear today’s brilliant fashions and look like they all just jumped out of the latest Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue. Sequences of slow motion running are littered throughout the movie. In one particularly scene it is hilarious – it comes at the end where Edward and Bella blissfully run through the woods like they are in a love story parody. Or Shrek. The theater I was in laughed out loud.

While “New Moon” does have a soundtrack filled with today’s indie pop heroes, it sort of shows just how commercialized the music has become. I have long noticed that the lyrics of the so called counter-culture indy bands are whining children sad about girls and relationships, but this movie just highlights it, and painfully at that. The lyrics and dialogue are so loathing and adolescent, it’s as though the script were written as a project in my high school drama class.

But…

I know that I am not the target demographic for this film. I doubt anyone was trying to make a great piece of art that places alongside Bergman, Hitchcock, or Fellini. For those who read the books, I salute thee and hope that you enjoyed the film for bringing the story to visual life. There is nothing wrong with liking what you like. In this case you probably just have bad taste.

But hey, I also used to adore The Monkees TV show as a kid.

In the end, this is what we call a booty cash call. It was not made for any other reason than to make money, which is why it gets the hottest tween actors and actresses, hip music, and shirtless tomfoolery. I know the films intentions, and I don’t fault it for that. But for any other reason, this is a big pile of crap waiting for your money. And with two more installments on the way, you and I know that it will get it over and over again.

"Anvil! The Story of Anvil"

Is there a point when it’s time to change your plans? You know, something just isn’t working right that you have been working on for so long? How about a business you started that just isn’t taking off? What about an acting career that has nothinged out, which led to you faking a stunt about putting your kids up in a balloon to get on TV?

Well, if the band “Anvil” is any indication, you should never quit pursuing your passion.

“Anvil” is a Candian metal band that has/had a legitimate talent. They were known back in the early 80’s as a new type of metal that brought the “heavy” into the mix. They shared the stage and influenced the likes of Slayer, Twisted Sister, Metallica, and Guns N Roses. And while all those bands went on to brainwash your children, “Anvil” was never let out of its cage to bang its head all over your stereo. No label picked them up, no band they inspired took them on tour. Many years, albums, and dwindling shows later, “Anvil” was finding itself to be a has been comprised of 4 old men who never graduated from Metal University.

So what happened? Where did they go? Should you and I care? The documentary “Anvil! The Story of Anvil” answers all these questions. It picks up in modern day where the guys get hooked up to go on an international tour. Some of the shows are genuinely great, as they share festival stages with other well known metal bands. Some of them are miserable, as we painfully share in the genuine heartbreak these guys go through. It is here where the Spinal Tap references are more than applicable.

Speaking of guys, while bass and lead guitar have been a rotating play list for “Anvil,” drummer Robb Reiner and lead singer Steve “Lips” Kudlow have been faithful and true back to where it all started in the earliest of the 1980’s. They are the kind of best friends who might as well be related. They fight and spit like brothers, and they would die for one another like brothers. It gives the movie a heart and soul that other films of its nature just don’t have. They are the reason you will end up caring, even if you hate the music.

But, as much as I cared about the guys and their never ending passion, it begs the question – When do you stop?

While watching the film, I couldn’t help but wonder. Lips and Reiner’s passion for their music and friendship is so strong, that “Anvil” is the marriage and the wives are the mistress. They work low end jobs to pay the bills. Each man has given up everything for the dream of being a full time touring musician. Even though the ship left the port when Nirvana docked in the 90’s, they still tightly held on to the dream.

Regardless, I absolutely loved this documentary because I know what it feels like to want to play music so badly that you would give up everything to do it. Ask anyone who plays music: If someone today were to present you with the opportunity play music for a living, would you drop everything and do it? The answer is “yes.” When you are fulfilling your passion, you feel a type of happy that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Nothing compares to it. This is the sort of thing where no matter if 10 or 1000 people show up, you still play with the same energy because you love the sound. You feel that feeling, and you get high on it. It is a beautiful thing to know your passion, and to relish in it. Playing music for these guys has never been a job they had to do. For them, it's why they breathe.

Since the film came out, “Anvil” has been getting more and more recognition. But I think that it may not be for the reasons they had hoped for. It is their story of the years and years of never giving up that makes me root for them, not their music. It is a double edged sword of recognition, but also novelty. Old school metalheads either knew about the band and forgot, or they have always cared. These are the ones “Anvil” will affect the most. But the rest of us probably wouldn’t go out and buy the soundtrack.

“Anvil” is a weird sort of gambling addiction for the guys. They go to the tables and play their cards, only to sometimes win. That type of positive reinforcement is called addiction. They tasted something once and have been trying to find it again ever since. However, I know of more than a few folks who are paying off recording debts in their parent’s basements while pimping out their myspace music page. You get stuck, and like an addiction it can ruin your life. You believe that someday something will happen. You’ll get that experience again, or that feeling will come back. Why go to school and get a degree if the band might take off? Why risk not playing a show? You have to wonder how far you go to hang onto the dream before moving on.

As a whole, I have a really mixed reaction. I can’t help but be happy that since the film released, they have only gotten more recognition due to the timely “don’t give up” message. It’s true, don’t give up on your passion. But the other side of me says sometimes, it’s best to know when to quit, or at least change your plans. I am grateful that in the case of “Anvil,” they stuck it out till the end.

You will be too.

Zombieland

Around elementary school age, I used to love playing with action figures. I used to spend hours pretending I would be the lone ninja GI Joe superhero spy who would come into the fray of soldiers, ninja turtles, and miscellaneous robots to save the day. I imagined being one man versus 1000, and the enemy never stood a chance. That’s because I am awesome, and my soldier could withstand any bad guy ninja in the pack.

Yep, unstoppably awesome.

My imagination about saving the day has always caught up with me at each stage of development. As a teenager, it was me pretending to walk down the hallway and ask out my dream girl, who secretly was in love with me. You see, unbeknownst to me, she had been admiring my awesome haircut, hardcore music related t-shirt, and my sense of humor. When I was on stage with my band, it wasn’t the reality of the crowd watching, it was the hope of that one person watching me.

In fantasy and imagination, no one stops you except for yourself. You can only imagine things that you understand. Often, these fantasies come from a place of wanting something you aren’t. Perhaps it was that in playing with my action figures as the lone wolf soldier, I was enjoying pretending to be invincible and in control. However, in reality I was a really anxious and socially nervous kid who dealt with a fair amount of being made fun of by my peers. Playing was way to feel cool, comfortable, and in control of my environment. Imagination and fantasy are why play therapy works so well with children, because children project onto the playing what is going on in their uncensored minds.

“Zombieland” is the ultimate in male escapist fantasy. It opens with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg from “The Squid and the Whale”) giving an overview of four simple rules to survive the world, or as the world is now known, “Zombieland.” As Columbus narrates, we see limbs flying, tendons being chewed on, flesh gushing, and all manner of zombie style gore - much of which is played for humor as opposed to terror.

Very quickly, Columbus meets Tallahassee (all characters go by the name of their home town) and off they go en route to their various destinations. While en route, the run into Little Rock and Wichita, two sister’s who are headed to a California amusement park. Columbus is immediately smitten with Wichita, and the chase is on for love…and freedom from zombies.

The story is told through the eyes of Columbus. He is your everyday lovable nerd who loves his World of Warcraft and Code Red Mountain Dew. He lacks social skills, particularly with females. The movie watches him try to be the hero in the midst of an ultimate tough guy, tiny teen, and gorgeous gal. The movie is about him, through him and by him.

It is his fantasy.

In fact “Zombieland” is every male geek’s fantasy. You know, the guy who obsessively plays videogames, is socially awkward, and has an insanely deep knowledge of all things safe (hence the rules in the film)? This is the guy who has his fun imagining slaying dragons, fighting on battlefields, and yes – saving the world. He imagines being cool while retaining his geek sense of self and makes friends with other cool people. Most importantly, he imagines getting the girl. At the end of it all, if the whole world was decaying and dying – he would survive it, show incredible courage, save the world, and get the girl.

It’s the little things that matter in life.

“Zombieland” is this male fantasy. I get the impression that the writer was making his autobiography of the future, only told through the lens of the past as his teen self. One could even argue that the character of Tallahassee is a projection of his inner fearless self. Consider that the tagline in “Zombieland” is “It’s time to nut up or shut up.” So what are the ladies supposed to do (because you know, women don’t have nuts)? In the film the women are clever con artists, but even at the end, they are transformed into damsels in distress and it’s up to Mr. Geek to save them and get his kiss of a reward. It is what every pimply faced teen dreams of accomplishing.

And yet, I really enjoyed “Zombieland.” I connected with it as a fun escapist movie that features plenty of jump scares, humor, action, and gore. It connected with the geeky male in me (there is plenty of it too). I liked the story, which had some real dynamic, emotional depth and character development in the most unlikely of places. I thought that Woody Harrelson was cast before the movie was actually written because he so embodies Tallahassee. The film had great one-liners, and the lines were delivered by actors who were fun to watch and listen to.

As a film, I have a couple criticisms. Some things are convenient, like how the protagonists first meet. Additionally there are some pacing issues. It starts off fast and loud, winds down and then ends somewhere in the middle. It wasn’t the finale it should have been. I would love to have seen some big explosions to close it out. Additionally, the rules idea was clever and set up well, but not carried through as consistently as could have been. Still, it was easy to forgive in a movie that was as much about giving you some scares and lots of laughs as it was about telling a story.

I read somewhere that “Zombieland” was America’s response to the completely awesome British film “Shaun of the Dead.” In many ways it is, though this film feels more polished – for better and for worse. I ultimately liked “Shaun” more, but that is not meant to be a knock to “Zombieland.” They both are really fun, entertaining movies that aim to do just that – entertain. It will connect with something in male’s more, but everyone will laugh at least once.

3.5/5

It Might Get Loud

How are you creative?

I am a musician, and have played mostly guitar and drums for over 17 years. I remember my first guitar - it was a red Hohner stratocaster copycat. I got it during Christmas one year, and I remember when I first saw it in the garage after all the other gifts had been opened. My Dad led me to it through a false story about spilling coffee and needing some carpet cleaner. The first time I looked, I didn't even see it. But the second time, I did see it, and thanks to guys like Beau Bivins and my Dad, I was playing metal with power chords as often as I possibly could.

Any of us who likes partaking in creative endeavors can remember when we started and how it felt. That first time we made up our own song, played it with strangers who become our new best friends, and then showed it to others awaiting their response was unforgettable. The feeling of playing music you create, love, and share with others is like giving a friend a present. You are nervous about what they will think as they unwrap the box. Only, when you create something you are that much more nervous of the person's reception - what will they think of the colors you chose? What will they think of the sound it makes, or the way it looks? It's a fantastic feeling when it is received well and even better when asked for more.

"It Might Get Loud" serves as an example of the creative process through three men's legacies that have been shaped by the guitar. Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge get together to discuss the way the guitar has impacted their lives. We see and hear early video of the stories of U2, Led Zepplin, and Jack White's music, to sometimes comedic effect. However, this is not a documentary about bands, it is a documentary about creative persons. You see just how these guys approached the same instrument from different views and thus created something uniquely special where no two sound the same. The film explain's how each person developed or found their iconic instrument (The Edge's classic sunburst guitar, Jack White's unique take on pick ups, Jimmy Page's two neck guitar), and ultimately reminds us just how diverse and subjective music (or art in general) actually is.

The movie does not aim to create something with these three musicians. In fact, the end result of their conversation is a cover song, perhaps appropriately so. But there won't be any superstar band or "project" as a result of the meeting. I liked that. It kept the focus on the process of playing, discovering and creating. It took the focus off of content. These three men have made a career, traveled the world, and had emotional impacts on people across the planet from the same device: the guitar.

The thing is, it doesn't appear that being famous is what anyone was necessarily striving for - a refreshing change of pace in a reality tv world. The three men share a rabid love of playing and experiencing music. We go into their homes and see what vinyls they have, what their favorite songs are, and where other musicians have inspired each of them. It is fantastic. It is less rock star, and more giddy child interacting with music enthusiast. It made me feel like I was just hanging out with the guys. To make it even more amazing, the film revisits the homes or places where one of each musicians classic works were created.

The movie nicely covers a diversity in approach to the guitar. Each player has a specific philosophy about the art. Two ends of the musical spectrum candidly reveal themselves: to be aided by technology or to rebel against it. There are those who love the aid of digital manipulation, and those who refuse to participate in anything remotely digitized. In the film, these spectrum's are inhabited at polar opposites by Jack White and The Edge. It is revealed that The Edge has an individual, no two alike effect for nearly every U2 song. He shows how there is a sort of artistic approach to the aid of technical effects and devices. Then there is Jack White, who rebels against technology like a 4 year old to broccoli. His guitars and sound are happily obtained from thrift stores or places tech head musicians wouldn't dare touch. However, White is clearly in search of a specific sound. Jimmy Page appears to be somewhere in the middle of the two, having a raw sound but with the aid of some effect and polished gear.

I am very much opposed to overly used effects when I play. However, in watching the film it occurred to me that the effect is not the instrument or the pedal, but the player. Just as a paint brush doesn't talk or move without the aid of an artist, a guitar sounds how its handler wants it to sound. The artist is the effect pedal. The instrument is being played through them as much as anything digitally manipulated. The film made me think about how I create and what I use to create with.

It would be interesting to see the movie with other guitarists that cover more than a mostly rock n' roll spectrum. What would it have been like if BB King were there? Or how about a jazz or classical player who can manipulate the guitar into other absurdly beautiful or technical spectrums? Or, in a dream world - could you imagine if Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi Hendrix were still alive and played together in this film?

I left the film wanting to begin playing again after a several year hiatus that had been brought on by my own lack of inspiration clogged by the demands of the stages in my life. Just hearing about how these men discovered music, play an instrument, and love their work made this an infectious movie. I cannot think of too many movies which left me wanting to go out and be creative. I got home, plugged in "Big Red" (all musicians name their instruments) and wrote a song.

All of the sudden I was playing music again, and it felt really good.

Questions to consider:

1. How are you creative? What is your primary means of creativity?

2. What inspires your creativity?

3. How often do you spend time admiring and praising the creativity of others?

4. If you haven't felt creative lately, what do you think some reasons might be?

5. What is something you have made that you are proud of?

6. How do you encourage the creativity of others?

7. Who inspires your creativity?

Liar Liar (or how I woke up one day and noticed my pants were very large)

This morning when I woke up, something felt different.

I went downstairs to start my day off with a run and noticed that my clothes felt baggy. What else is strange is that I ran the whole route instead of jogged it. After my run when I went to the kitchen for breakfast, I skipped right over to some oatmeal and fruit, a change of pace from the usual sugary cereal. I also happened to have packed a lunch the night before that looked abnormally trim. I finished my morning routine and - again - went on to notice that my clothing was balloon parachute worthy. What happened?

"Liar Liar" asks a potent question: If you woke up one day with a massive change in your life - How would you notice? How would your day be different?

Jim Carrey comically acts out the scenario as a lawyer who habitually lies. It's an older film many of us have seen that has a 3 part structure capped by a saccharine ending. Of Jim Carrey's comedy's, it's probably my favorite due to the way it showcases his comedic talent. The humor is just right, and it is hard to imagine anyone else besides Jim Carrey in the role. I am also personally fond of Tom Shadyac (Bruce Almighty, Ace Ventura), the film's director. Based on who I know him to be from his work with student's at Pepperdine, I have a lot of respect for the man which automatically endears me to his movies.

I want to draw attention to its central theme - change. While lying is the vice that is used to demonstrate change, I think the movie is less about the virtue of telling the truth and more about change in general. The movie poses a great question - if you woke up tomorrow and that habit you most wanted to change in your life were changed - how would you know? What would you notice?

Carrey never wishes away the lying, his change is the wish of his son. Yet, in thinking about change, this often true of ourselves. We are far too often not the instigators of change in our life even though we are ultimately the one's responsible for it. A friend or loved one may instead point out in us an aspect of our lives which is destructive because they feel and see the negative habit with a clearer view than we do. We are often unable to notice it. Think of a close friend in your life - have you ever confronted them on something? What was their reaction?

Change is hard because we make it hard. If not for ourselves, change would be easy in most cases. We are responsible for those behaviors we want to change. The reason is because destructive behavior serves a purpose. For example, I was once told by an overeater support group therapist that he got many doctors and nurses in his group. Why would medical professionals overeat or harm their bodies when they treat its ill effects so often? The therapist's answer was that these doctor's and nurses often have an entitlement mentality that plays out as something like: "I worked extra long hours today and served my patient's with hard work. As a result, I can treat myself to this doughnut (or whatever vice it may be)." For them, the food serves the purpose of comfort and reward for their sacrificial work.

How many of us can identify with a long, stressful day and then feel like we earned that extra large blended coffee drink? I know I can. What if it became a comfortable habit?

Change is hard, and we often do what we can to sabotage it. Sometimes we resist change so much that we are willing to be deceitful with those we love the most. Think of Carrey in the film attempting to manipulate his own son to get the change reversed. The scene is uncomfortable at some level to watch because we know Carrey is not interested in his son, but his son is deeply interested in a relationship with him. Often when a vice serves a function in our life - drugs, alcohol, overeating, lying, etc. - we are scared to do life without it. We thrive on that thing which ironically harms us and our relationships.

There is a principle in family therapy called "homeostasis" which is another way of saying "family functioning." When one person changes - the alcoholic stops drinking, the son or daughter puts up a parental boundary, etc - it typically means things get worse before they get better. It makes change all the more difficult. However, as with a dentist's visit to get a tooth pulled, it sometimes takes a degree of pain to remove something before healing sets in.

So, let's do an example. We'll suppose that you noticed recently you have been spending too much time on the internet. If you woke up tomorrow and this were changed, what would you first notice? You might notice that you don't have the compulsion to log in as much to certain e-mail accounts or websites. You might notice that you pick up the phone and call a friend to socialize. You might even head to the beach and just be still with God. You may notice that all of the sudden - you have time on your hands you didn't have before. You also might feel a little bit scared about this newfound connection through disconnection. That's okay. Better yet - that's a good thing. Change is scary, but all of us need it at times in our life to become more mature (or to the believer - more like Jesus). This is the process of refinement, or ultimately - growth. And like all things that grow, growth often coincides with health.

So now, what do you want to change?