Gonna Try Wordpress

Hi all! I've decided I'm going to give Wordpress a spin, so new reviews will be up there for a bit. If I like it, they'll be up there permanently. Address is:

robsbiasedmoviereviews.wordpress.com

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Director(s): James Gunn

Writer(s): James Gunn, Nicole Perlman

MPAA rating: PG-13

Runtime: 2h 2m

Format: Live Action

Genre: Action Adventure Sci-fi

STARRING

Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Lee Pace, Karan Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, John C. Reilly, Benicio Del Toro, Glenn Close

PREMISE

An interstellar sci-fi, blockbuster action flick about a bunch of dirty space outlaws who have to learn to get past themselves to save the galaxy.

THEMES

The clear primary theme of the movie is one of redemption. They might be dirty outlaws, but even dirty outlaws can do good things for the right reasons and turn their lives around.

A second clear theme is that mean, criminal folk aren't necessary evil (humanly speaking), but just broken by things that have happened to them. All but one of our protagonists eventually ended up becoming a dirty outlaw because of the suffering they experienced earlier in life. (Divinely speaking, every person alive is evil, and that's why we need a savior in Yeshua the Messiah.)

A third clear theme is that we all need each other, for both help and friendship. In regards to help, one person can't accomplish big things by themselves, and lots of big things need to be done. In regards to friendship, it's what we as humans need for healthy souls. (Aliens apparently need it too.)

A fourth and final clear theme is that the only way we can come together is to put aside our differences. Our dirty outlaw heroes are all very different in outlook, even being different species, but they manage to become a team. (I completely overlooked this theme until 8/4/14, two days after viewing. It never registered to me that all the characters were very different. Interesting. Definitely not the movie's fault that I missed it.)

LIKES

Aside from focusing on outlaws, this movie pretty much replicated about 90% of my childhood imagination. Yup, sitting there in church back in the late 1980's and early 90's, this stuff was what I was thinking about. (Aside from samurai bursting in and slicing up all the pews into pieces.)

It's a much better Star Wars movie than the new Star Wars movies. But I suppose that's not hard.

The themes.

The fun tone. The flick was just having a good time, and it did it well in my opinion.

The tree-man named Groot, one of our dirty outlaws. "I am Groot." That's all he can say. He's the movie's Chewbacca, except he's way cooler and, I think, more golden-hearted than Chewbacca.

I was actually impressed by the special effects. That doesn't happen often. CGI sure has come a long way since the early 1980's.

DISLIKES

The bad guy is a religious extremist. I understand why the writers would choose that route given what radical Muslims have been doing for over a decade now, but part of me felt like it was a subtle stab from Hollywood Neo Atheists at all traditional religion. It can be difficult to know what's deliberate and what isn't when it comes to this stuff.

I'm not really a fan of the lovable bad boy. I was always "Lawful Good" in my Dungeons & Dragons games.

Once again Hollywood glamorizes criminals and a criminal lifestyle, but at least it wasn't overbearing and was somewhat addressed by the end.

Warrior women. A distinctly unfeminine image in a time when gender identities are in total chaos and God's intended designs are greatly needed.

I never feel entirely comfortable with how cheaply action movies treat life.

I didn't find the movie as funny as people claim it is. I didn't laugh or even chuckle once. But lots of people in the theater did.

Rocket, the intelligent cyborg raccoon, was a total jerk, and I wasn't much amused by his jerk humor. But, even so, and unsurprisingly, he's one of the most popular characters of the film. He was designed to be a lovable jerk, but I just didn't find him all that lovable.

The bizarre after-credits scene. I entirely understood what was going on, but it somehow felt like breaking the fourth wall, and that felt very out of place in a movie like this.

As usual, people sleeping around like it's okay. But at least it wasn't coming across too strong in this movie.

S-L-V CONTENT

Profanity and violence earn their PG-13 rating, but nothing I can remember pushes it too much. As far as sexuality, Zoe Saldana is the subject of a bunch of quickly over, but obvious, (clothed) butt-shots. And some of the alien background women wear immodest clothing. Overall, though, nothing sexual challenges the PG-13 rating. I think this movie could have been PG without censoring much.

EDIT: Upon a second viewing, I noticed something I missed: there is a shot of naked male buttocks. It's small on the screen and, obviously, easy enough to miss that I didn't even notice it the first time around. Also, I have a feeling that there will be increased sexuality (at least) in an extended cut available for home video.

ROB'S FINAL OPINION

3 out of 4 stars - I liked it.

I didn't like it as much as a lot of people did, but still, I liked it.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Director(s): Jared Hess

Writer(s): Jared Hess, Jerusha Hess

MPAA rating: PG

Runtime: 1h 36m

Format: Live Action

Genre: Comedy

STARRING

Jon Heder, Jon Gries, Aaron Ruell, Efren Ramirez, Tina Majorino

PREMISE

High school. We all remember it. This is a story out of the life of the coolest uncool high school dweeb-geek-dork of all time: Napoleon Dynamite.

THEMES

I'm not sure there were any deliberate themes in the film. But if there were some, they're probably that everyone eventually gets their day, everything works out in the end, and there's a woman out there for every man.

LIKES

This movie is hilarious, at least in my opinion. It's like an irresistibly horrifying train wreck with a happy ending. There are too many things I could list that were just ingeniously funny.

"I caught you a delicious bass."

Tina Majorino is super cute.

Gives me hope that someday even I might finally go on my first date, let alone get a girlfriend.

DISLIKES

Uncle Rico's meddling. It was annoying at times.

Reminding me of high school.

S-L-V CONTENT

The content here doesn't test the boundaries of PG. In other words it's relatively clean of S-L-V. The worst you're going to get is a bunch of vain uses of the Lord's name, a comic attempt for a small portion of the film to get women to buy breast-enhancing herbs, and a female character who, for a small portion of the film, is a bit sensual in her general presentation.

ROB'S FINAL OPINION

4 out of 4 stars - I loved it!

This is simply one of my all-time favorite movies. I've seen it many times, and will go one seeing it, hopefully often with people who have never seen it.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Director(s): Drew Goddard

Writer(s): Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard

MPAA rating: R

Runtime: 1h 35m

Format: Live-Action

STARRING

Kristen Connolly, Fran Kranz, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams

PREMISE

There's very little I can say about this movie without spoiling the plot, and this film far more than many relies on surprise. So, having said that, all I can say about the premise is this:

It's a typical sexy, bloody slasher movie for Halloween, except it's not typical. The filmmakers had some fun and the movie isn't shy about it.

H.P. Lovecraft fans unite!

THEMES

No deliberate themes, except perhaps that maybe humanity's time should be over, and that marijuana is our greatest weapon against evil.

LIKES

Neat twist. Kinda funny actually, in a horrifying sort of way. I also didn't mind that you can guess it long before the end of the movie. The hints are rather liberal in number.

Not as scary as I thought it would be. The filmmakers were clearly going less for terror and more for having fun with their special twist.

Dark humor.

DISLIKES

Dark humor.

Pornography. I'm as red-blooded as the next guy and have a fully functioning sex drive, and the "fleshly" man in me very much loves the ladies, but the godly man in me doesn't want to see porn. Anything that brings sexual enticement outside the bedroom is pornographic, and is not sexually healthy.

Watching young people be young and stupid. In college I just hid in my dorm room. (But even I, of all people, didn't manage to get through college without at least one topless woman in my dorm room, as well as a fight in which I did not take part that covered my bed and posters with blood. And my poor Dreamcast… all that beer spilled on it… *sniff*)

I should feel sorry for people when they die, especially in a gruesome fashion. And I should be horrified watching a movie like this. Oh well. Yay for desensitization?

The ubiquitous depiction in modern society of nothing being wrong with premarital sex.

S-L-V CONTENT

This one isn't for the kids. The movie very much earns its "R" rating in profanity and violence. There are lots of f-bombs, and it's a horror movie. As for sex, there is indeed a lot of sexiness, and there's one topless scene that's drawn out long enough to get a very good view. (It's the only nudity, though.)

ROB'S FINAL OPINION

2.5 out of 4 stars - Between "I liked it" and "meh."

The atypical plot was a refreshing spin on a tired sub-genre of horror, but it wasn't enough for me to give out a full three stars.

Son of God (2014)

Instead of my usual format, I just want to say regarding this film…

AVOID. DO NOT WATCH.

Son of God sets out to tell the story of Yeshua the Messiah as described in the Biblical Gospels. But instead of doing this, it... doesn't, not really. This film is a travesty. I watched just 30 minutes of it and already had pages of notes on historical and doctrinal inaccuracies. I was simply horrified and could not bring myself to continue viewing.

Why so serious a pronouncement? Folks, this isn't an adaptation of a book by J.R.R. Tolkien. It's not The Hobbit. It's the THE BIBLE. You don't mess with the Bible! It's THE WORD OF GOD.

It's acceptable to paraphrase the words of the Bible so long as the precise messages and events remain intact. It's also acceptable to add appropriately considered scenes to a Bible movie in order to fill in gaps of time or just have a little fun. But this movie goes far beyond either of these and actually alters, in a very real way, the Biblical account and what it directly and indirectly teaches.

There is simply too much to complain about even in the first 30 minutes, let alone the next 108! I'll leave the list of crimes to the following two review authors. Jeremy's review is long and in-depth while Sunny's is much shorter but still just as rightly damning.

Sunny Shell - Movie Review: "Son of God" Is Most Certainly Not The Son of God

"Prior to entering the theater today, I went in with an open-Bible-mind and open-Spirit-heart. I hoped that this movie was better than the mini-series, but alas, it was not. The majority of this film was simply scenes taken from the heretical and blasphemous mini-series."  _ "I won't go point by point on all the biblical errors in this movie because honestly, there's just not enough room in one review nor time in one day to cover the ineptness of the writers and producers of this film."

Jeremy Seifert - Review of "Son of God"

"It’s my opinion that this movie, if it MUST be shown, should at the very least come with a disclaimer something like the following: 'The following movie is drawn from the words of the Bible, but is not an attempt to literally recreate any portion of the Biblical narratives in the Gospels, but instead, retell the parts the authors most liked in the way they most liked to tell them.' Because that really sums up what I observed."

But even these reviews don't cover everything that could be addressed. Both authors admit this! And I can see how, because again, in just 30 minutes I had pages of notes on inaccuracies.

No one should watch this movie, or the mini-series that preceded it by the same creator.

Speaking of Son of God's primary creator, Roma Downey, she has a very questionable take on the Truth. It's true that no two Christians fully agree on everything, but then there's folks like Downey. Do the research and you might be surprised at what you find. She, for example, has a degree from the University of Santa Monica in "Spiritual Psychology." Here's how the website itself defines this discipline:

"Spiritual Psychology is the study and practice of the art and science of human evolution in consciousness." _ "Put another way, Spiritual Psychology is a technology that empowers students to convert their everyday life experiences into rungs on the ladder of Spiritual Evolution."

Folks, the spirit of the degree is purely New Age, i.e. not Christian. And I've not seen any indication that she has renounced its teachings.

Let's also note that in 2002 Roma Downey went on television with psychic and medium Jonathan Edwards to talk to her dead mother, a practice condemned in the Bible!

SPREAD THE WORD: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.

ROB'S FINAL OPINION

Zero stars - I hated it.

A Cat in Paris (2010)

Director(s): Jean-Loup Felicioli, Alain Gagnol

Writer(s): Alain Gagnol, Jacques-Rémy Girerd

MPAA rating: PG

Runtime: 1h 4m

Format: Animation

Viewed with an English dub. It didn't even occur to me to watch it in French until it was already over.

STARRING (English cast)

Marcia Gay Harden, Angelica Huston, Steve Blum, JB Blanc, Matthew Modine

PREMISE

A little girl from a broken family gets into some big trouble, and it's up to a kind-hearted thief and the wandering cat who connects them to save her. But can her family be saved, too?

THEMES

The cat is, metaphorically speaking, the spirit of the little girl, and therefore the spirit of the little girl is wandering and looking for things to bring home and make her happy.

Wounds need closure of some kind if any good healing is to ever occur. It's not enough to just go on living. Time is always a factor in the good healing of wounds, but not the only one. (The movie didn't get that complex about this theme, but I felt it was implied.)

A person might not be a very good parent, but that doesn't mean they're not trying hard to be one.

Bad people are stupid? (That's probably not a deliberate theme but kids might walk away with that.)

LIKES

Good themes, except maybe for that last one.

The artistry was beautiful. French and Japanese filmmakers consistently have an eye for aesthetics while Americans just go for the soulless wow-factor with their visuals. [sigh] I'll take visuals like this over Frozen any day.

I enjoyed seeing a movie for kids that didn't come across as ADHD. These guys weren't following Hollywood's example, thank God.

It was a movie from France but there was nothing sumptuously sexual in it. It's nice to see that they at least don't put that stuff in their movies for kids.

DISLIKES

The comedic nature of the bad guys kinda fell flat for me, but it probably wouldn't for kids.

Thievery is once again glamorized by storytelling. But at least it wasn't too strong in this particular story.

The bad guys in the movie are basically referred to as garbage by the good guys. I never dig that. Yeshua died for us all, because we all deserve to die. That doesn't mean we tolerate crime, but it does mean we reject hatred.

At the risk of being spoiler-ish, I have to say that the movie ended a little too neatly for my tastes. But I can understand why people would enjoy seeing it end that way.

S-L-V CONTENT

Nothing in the way of sex or profanity, though some parents might not feel comfortable with the presence of a giant (but undetailed) penis on a huge, reoccurring statue. But there was nothing sexual or even humorous about it. It was just the sort of thing you'd really see on a statue like that.

The violence is very PG, but some parents might not like the main bad guy shooting a gun a lot in anger, even trying to kill animals and bugs with it.

ROB'S FINAL OPINION

3 out of 4 stars - I liked it.

The "likes" have won me over here. I enjoyed the art.

Woochi the Demon Slayer (2009)

Director(s): Dong-Hoon Choi

Writer(s): Dong-Hoon Choi

MPAA rating: Unrated (estimated PG-13)

Runtime: 2h 16m

Watched in Korean with English subtitles.

STARRING

Dong-won Kang, Hae-jin Yoo, Yun-seok Kim, and Su-jeong Lim

PREMISE

A magical flute originally made to seal away monsters holds the power to subdue one's enemies. This, of course, means war. On one side is an arrogant Taoist wizard and three moronic but immortal angelic beings. On the other side is a monster disguised as a human. There's also a pretty woman and an often butt-smelling dog in the form of a man. The war begins 500 years ago and, thanks to the powers of magic and immortality, ends with the same characters in the present day.

THEMES

While a theme was there, it came across very weak to me. The movie didn't seem to really be about it at all. (Someone's been taking notes on typical Hollywood screenwriting techniques.)

But here's the theme just so you know it: true power doesn't come through what's on the outside, but rather what's on the inside. In order to defeat his enemy our hero has to turn aside from his arrogant and selfish ways, and his reliance on magical paper charms, to win. He must become a new man and call forth the magic from within. Only in this way can he become a true master of Tao. This all sounds good in words, but in the movie I felt that it was weakly applied.

LIKES

Some of magic stuff was kinda cool.

DISLIKES

I had a very hard time following the plot. I'm sure that was partly because my narrative mind hasn't been trained by Korean mythology and cinema, and partly because the subtitles were going pretty fast. But still, it was hard to follow. I think it was mainly a two-punch combo-hit of writing and editing that did it. Even by the end I wasn't quite sure why or how certain things occurred. I even went back and rewatched some of the film but still wasn't much wiser for it. I'm left with questions, but not the fun/good kind.

The story almost felt like it was "all over the place;" unfocused, confusing. Bah, anyway, see the last paragraph. This issue is probably mostly (if not entirely) because of that issue.

The movie just felt long to me, really long. I was wishing it was over about half to three-quarters of the way through. I'm sure having a hard time keeping up didn't help. It may, in fact, have been the cause.

(This is only the second Korean film I've seen, the first being the animated movie Yobi, the Five-Tailed Fox. I ended up liking that movie, but it was also written in a way that was similar to Woochi. Maybe it's a Korean thing? Have I discovered a form of storytelling that is truly foreign to the way I think?)

I didn't dig the strange way one of the characters mixed Christianity and Eastern religion. It wasn't a big deal the way it was handled, but it just didn't work for me. It was meant as humor but I don't much laugh at stuff like that. An example: in one scene some characters were performing a ritual and it wasn't working. One character asked the Christian guy if he had his Bible, intending to imply that the presence of a Bible would mess things up. The Christian denied having a Bible on him in a manner that implied agreement with this assessment. Hmm.

All the humor fell completely flat for me. It wasn't even amusing.

There were some scenes where I couldn't help but wonder where the cops and witnesses were. The lack of them seemed awfully strange.

S-L-V CONTENT

The film would easily earn a PG-13 rating in profanity and, to some extent, violence (and blood). But there's only very minor sexual content.

ROB'S FINAL OPINION

1 out of 4 stars - I didn't like it.

It was hard to follow and felt way too long, and I was left in some degree of confusion. Nothing about this film really "worked" for me.