Eagle Eye

When I went to see Eagle Eye I wasn't sure what to expect. I had only seen part of the trailer and I just knew it was about two people who were wrongfully accused of crimes they didn't commit and were on the run from the law. I found it was much more complicated than that. Warning: if you haven't seen it yet here come the spoilers.

Many of the scenes reminded me of other movies. The main character played by Shia LaBeouf gets a phone call from a stranger warning him of eminent danger and instructing him what he must do in order to escape. He ignores the advice and ends up in custody and is questioned by a hard nosed official just like The Matrix. The surveillance and spying technology reminded me of Enemy of the State and we've seen the manipulating of traffic lights and equipment in Live Free or Die Hard.

This movie's premise is not original either. This is the same plot from 2001: A Space Odyssey, War Games, I Robot, and Stealth. Half way through the movie we learn that the manipulating lady on the other end of the phone is actually a computer. Aria is a top secret government computer that goes bad and takes matters into her own hands and formulates a complicated assassination plot.

Eagle Eye is action packed and intense but obviously unrealistic. There were some interesting conspiracy theory themes that were appealing and it made me wonder how much big brother watches us and what technology the government really has when it comes to surveillance and spying. Despite the over the top fake details I still enjoyed this movie. It may not be original but it was entertaining. Besides how can you not like a movie where the star of the film plays identical twins? I guess we could add The Parent Trap to the list of previously mentioned movies while we're at it. I give it 6.9 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Hulk

Speaking of shallow, non-confrontational movies, I just saw The Incredible Hulk. I know what you're asking: Which one? The most recent one, starring Edward Norton and Liv Tyler. Now, I'm not sure how many Incredible Hulk movies this world needs...all I know is that I really loved this one and I'm glad the story was redone from the 2003 version.

It had several things going for it before it started; actors that I like in a tragic story. But the 2003 version had some of that as well and didn't quite pull it off. So what was it about this 2008 version that was so much better? I think the story was a lot more engaging, and it was directed in a such a way as to keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time. I felt like it was strong in all the core elements: story, dialogue, acting, music, cinematography, action, special effects...

I saw the 2003 version and to tell you the truth, I don't remember much about it at all. I remember it wasn't as bad as I was expecting, but it must not have made much of an impression. But I know I'll remember this version...I know because I actually want to watch it again, which is usually how I can divide the good movies from the bad.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I prefer action, comedy and sci-fi, movies but I occasionally watch documentaries so I won't feel so shallow. Several months ago I heard about Expelled just before it was released. I was surprised to learn that Ben Stein was behind this movie. I knew him as the lethargic teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and from Clear Eyes Commercials, but I didn't know much else about him. Due to the controversial nature of this movie I did not expect it to do well in the theaters, but I had no idea that the critics would crucify it like they did. It currently has a 3.5 Rating on IMDB and it was much lower than that when it first came out. In fact the low rating was one of the reasons I decided to rent it. I was curious to see if this movie had been black listed or if it was really as bad as reviewers and comment boards said it was.

In this film Ben Stein takes a look at many of America's institutions of higher learning and their opposition to allow the teaching of creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution. He interviews several distinguished professors who claim to have lost their jobs for even bringing up the topic in their classes or in papers they had published. He claims the faculty members and higher powers who are proponents of Darwin's theory of Evolution have gotten rid of anyone who even raises the possibility of creationism as a theory in the classroom.

There is silly slapstick footage of old black and white movies spliced in throughout the movie which is supposed to be analogous to the ongoing battle over this topic. Stein really offended his critics when he compared those who teach only Evolution to Nazis. I think it's usually a mistake to compare anyone to Nazis, but I could see the point he was making. Many of the leaders of the third Reich were stanch disciples of Darwin and Eugenics and believed it was their duty to purge the world of weaker species and inferior humans. He addressed how planned parenthood and the euthanasia movement have also been influenced by Darwin. The movie took a very somber turn as he visited holocaust sites and Darwin's museum in Europe. I thought the movie started to drag and this point and lost some momentum.

An insightful part of this movie was to watch some of the most bitter opponents of intelligent design, creationism, and God. You get a real feel for their condescending attitude and the disgust they have for anyone who is foolish enough to even entertain such ideas. Seeing some of these intellectual giants made me grateful that I am not consumed in academia. (Watching some of their interviews also made me want to send them a gift certificate for a makeover.) I find it ironic that many of the great scientific discoveries were made by men who were under a great deal of scrutiny and opposition from the scientific community of their time. I would think that some of the antagonistic scientists would acknowledge this but when it comes to this topic there is no room for debate.

The highlight of the film was an interview Ben Stein had with Richard Dawkins, a devout atheist and outspoken opponent of intelligent design. Dawkins begins the interview by outright denying the existence of God and belittles the idea of ID but after continual questioning he ends up saying he could see some higher intelligence or life form seeding the planet for life but says it could possibly have been aliens but not the God we know. It was interesting to hear him contradict himself and actually describe the concept behind intelligent design.

The critics claimed this was a shallow one sided documentary. Few documentaries are unbiased these days. I have a feeling the critics of this movie are the same ones that give Michael Moore's work rave reviews. Ben Stein obviously had an agenda and wanted to convey his concerns and he does succeed raising several legitimate questions. I think it is interesting to see how quickly industries and societies that clamor for tolerance, diversity, and open mindedness will put the clamps on a movie like this if it doesn't agree with their beliefs or agenda. The media and academia ripped this movie a new one, but I thought it deserved a much better rating than most people have given it. I give it 6.7 out of 10 rating. Now I can't wait to get back to my shallow non-controversial movies.

Shine

I saw this movie last night for the first time, and I really enjoyed it.  First of all, the acting was amazing, which everyone knows because Geoffrey Rush won an Oscar for best leading role and the movie won a whole bunch of other Academy Awards.  Secondly, I was prepared for it to be really depressing with a lot of physical child abuse, and while it was sad to see how manipulative and selfish David's father was, it wasn't as depressing as I was expecting.  On the contrary, I was inspired!  For two reasons:

His life finally had a turning point.  The whole point of the movie is that no matter how bad it is, you just roll with it.  There's nothing else you can do but survive and hope things will turn around, and sometimes they do.  

The other thing that inspired me is the value of one human person that was portrayed in the movie.  Here you have this guy who is totally crazy,...he can barely dress himself and you can hardly understand what he's saying, and yet when he walks into this little cafe and starts playing the piano he totally blows everyone's minds, and he's also so lovable.  So you can see how incredibly valuable he is as a human being, just as we all are, even though most people on first glance would laugh him off.   

Dan In Real Life

I kinda liked this one. Liked it for 3 reasons:

1) There were some drawbacks but surprisingly, none of them bothered me. The plot was really simple and there were absolutely no surprises. The resolution felt rushed and even included a few trite moments (like when his lovesick daughter randomly went from hating his guts from the depth of her soul to engaging herself his cause once he demonstrated he was really in love). I found myself able to look past these things easily and I'm still not sure exactly why. Probably because of the overall feel of the film. I felt like I was watching real people in a real family and a real house, and I appreciated that it actually made me laugh out loud a couple of times.

2) I found it very refreshing to watch a story involving adult siblings and a large extended family. They support each other, tease each other, and laugh together. I realized that Hollywood doesn't portray this scenario often....But it's something I can relate to and something I love.

3) Watching Steve Carell be funny without having to worry every minute about him popping out something crude. I think he is a talented actor and it was just nice to not be on edge or have the thought that I shouldn't be watching this....and I think you all know what I mean.

Middlemarch

Have you seen this version of Middlemarch?

Or maybe you’ve read the book. If either of these apply to you, then please HELP ME!

If you have a Netflix account, you can find this 1994 miniseries from BBC among the “watch instantly” options. You can find a plot summary here.

Did I like the film? Yes. I liked it very much. It had all the classic elements of our favorite English-novel-turned-period-drama. Beautiful language. Beautiful people. Virtuous people. Selfish people. And about every theme on the planet: Wealth, Class Distinctions, Reform, Education, Religious Hypocrisy, and Marriage. Only this time we don’t get the Happily Ever After we are accustomed to with Jane Austen. This time, George Eliot, aka Mary Anne Evans, left me with something more to think about. Dang it!!!

Okay, I was moderately satisfied with the outcome for these guys:

Mr. and Mrs. Casaubon

She marries him, despite the fact that he is decades her senior. She thought to be able to help him with his life’s work, A Key To All Mythologies. Not. He turns out to be a jerk. Fortunately he is dead by the end of episode 3. Sadly, he stipulates in his will that if she decides to marry this guy:

Will Ladislaw

….she will automatically be disinherited of Mr. Casaubon’s fortune. Cruel. Well, she doesn’t care and by the end she marries Mr. Ladislaw anyway. An ending I can be satisfied with.

Life also seems to turn out okay for these guys:
Fred and Mary Vincy
They grew up as childhood sweethearts, but Mary refuses to give Fred any encouragement to pursue her until he can manage to prove himself capable of providing a decent living. He suffers the pains of being an idle, debt-ridden lug, disappointed of his expected inheritance from his rich uncle. However, by the end he seems to find his way and they marry happily.
Okay. I can accept that.

Here’s the one that is still bothering me:

Dr. Tertius and Mrs. Rosamond Lydgate

I had every hope that these two were going to turn out to be the idyllic couple. He is an extremely ambitious, optimistic, talented, and well-educated doctor with high hopes of making great medical discoveries and turning Middlemarch into the town that forges the way in the medical world. I like him a lot. He’s self-confident and competent, and not afraid to be his own man.
She is beautiful. I guess that’s really all I can say about her now.
On first viewing I thought they really did have the adoring relationship we all aspire to. However, I’m slowly coming to grips with the fact that while he adores her, she really only admires him superficially, counting on his “high connections” (which he, sadly for her, despises) to elevate them in the classes.
Things go well for them at first, except that she speedily drives him into debt which he allows in an effort to please her. But then when he steps back and tries to make efforts to economize, she thwarts those efforts and turns their marriage south. Turns out that while maybe she loves her husband kind of, she apparently loves material wealth and her image in society even more.

I keep hoping that once the debt gets resolved, which it does, they will be able to repair the damage to their marriage and reinstate the adoration. However, that never happens and it still bugs me. In fact, this is what Wikipedia says about his demise:

He quickly falls out of love with his wife and ends up sacrificing all of his high ideals in order to make a living that will please Rosamond.

Aargh!! No!! Please, someone, just tell me it isn’t true.

Actually, that IS what Weston keeps trying to tell me. It’s fiction, Em.

I’m trying to recreate a different ending in my head. The one where they really do have a happy marriage, despite the arguments over money. That’s what forgiveness is for after all, right? And the one where she realizes that being a doctor is what makes him. What he loves. And that he is able to go on in that profession and accomplish his dreams.

It has lead me to a quandary of what really makes a happy marriage. Is good marriage vs. bad marriage really so cut-and-dried? Is it so easy to slap a label on two people and conclude that their relationship is happy or miserable? What of the fact that no two people are perfect, hence, no marriage is really perfect. What about the fact that people can grow and change, and that especially in a marriage, the process of learning how to communicate and love and give and forgive takes time?

In a pragmatist sense, maybe it’s just because we don’t see what happens to the other couples after they marry. It just so happens that they marry at the end of the movie. Just because we don’t see the challenges that they face, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t have them. This is true of any and every happily-ever-after story we’ve all known and loved these many years. At first I thought relieved to see a film in which the story doesn't end with the wedding...but if it's not happily ever after, maybe I just can't take it.

Discuss.

Genesis -- Why this blog?

You may be wondering why I need a separate blog to journal my thoughts about works I've recently seen or read. Hmm...I'm not sure either.

Just Because.

Sometimes I find myself thinking way too much about a film or story that has impacted me in ways I'm not really able to identify. This blog will serve as an outlet to help me organize my thoughts and get them out of my system. And, it will also serve as an invitation to any of you readers out there who may have comments on the same work, or comments on my comments.

Actually, Angie pointed out that it might be even more fun to open up this blog to anyone who wants to post their musings about recently-experienced works. What a fantastic idea! If you want to be included as an author, post a comment to that effect, or email me and I will let you in. Feel free to review anything; fiction, non-fiction, films, events, recipes...you name it.

Before I go any further I have to acknowledge my awareness that this is not an original idea. To view my inspiration, click on Rachel's Like/Don't Like Blog. (You can also find a link to her on the sidebar anytime.) No doubt you will find her reviews very entertaining and insightful. Plus, she reads a lot more than I do.

Looking forward to your musings,

~Emily