Archive for June, 2011

Over Analysis of a Scene: Transformers Edition

With Transformers 3 hitting theaters for the 4th of July weekend, I decided to revisit the first in the series, Transformers.  It’s odd but for some strange reason I have very little interest in watching Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen again though!  None the less, I found myself not confused by the idea that robots from space transform into cars.  I found little problems with the idea of an all spark and a secret government cover up.  The thing I couldn’t wrap my brain around was a little scene that involved a pair of ancient spectacles.

First things first; let’s watch the scene:

Now onto stage 2; The dissection begins!

That short and sweet clip rocked my Transformers world for perhaps the silliest of reasoning.  Those glasses as you may already know belonged to the great Archibald Witwicky, Sam’s great grandfather, who was an explorer who discovered the very first transformer on earth.  The glasses play a central role in the film, as they contain info from the all spark engraved on the lens.  We see Sam trying to sell them on ebay and keeping them in a glasses case in his room..  Yet in this scene, we see Optimus pluck them up after they are dropped.  My over analysis has me wondering about the scale of those glasses.

Earlier Optimus is holding cars in the palm of his hand, and holding 2 people, Shia and Megan Fox in his very same clutches with very little ease.  Suddenly when he goes to pick up the glasses they fit neatly between his 2 fingers?  That means that either the glasses have grown to be the size of 4 Sam Witwicky’s or Optimus has surely shrunk in a matter of seconds.  After all, if you tried to put on the pair of glasses that Optimus picked up it would be like balancing a motorcycle on your nose at the very least.   Unless Archibald Witwicky was a circus clown there was no reason he would have glasses this size; and the film shows us him wearing them on his initial discovery and Sam holding the glasses in earlier scenes, so we know this can not be true.

That’s right, out of the ENTIRE film Transformers, I question the size of a prop when it ends up in a robot’s hand.  I have over thought this scene, and now you have too!

Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs jumps back and forth between the present and the past, but skips a major part in the tale. It’s like if we are reading a story but the middle section is removed. At the end of this book, the characters are aware that this section has been excluded, and attempt to fill us in on what happened; they say things to each other that they already know to inform us, not each other. But they eventually run out of time and the book comes to a conclusion, leaving us to figure out the majority of what happened for ourselves.

Here is what we do know: There are some people who attempted to pull off a bank robbery. Their goal was to get a large number of diamonds in a two-minute timeframe. Something went wrong during the heist — a couple of these men were killed, as a matter of fact — and now these thieves need to figure out why the police managed to get to the scene of the crime so quickly. One character remarks that it should have taken them four minutes to get there, but instead, they were there almost instantly. There’s a rat, they decide, and most of the film is spent trying to determine who the rat is.

The rest of the film, prior to us finding out this “major mystery”, is spent in flashbacks, learning both about how the crime was supposed to happen, and also why each character decided to take part in it. We don’t get the details about every character, but instead just get to see a select few of them. The major players are Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) and Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), but there are several other people who eventually become involved.

For the most part, the film works. It stays compelling for the majority of the time it plays, save for select moments where it drags. Even without much action ever happening — like how we don’t get to see the actual botched robbery — we are drawn in because of the characters. As the opening scene will show you, you could listen to these people talk for an entire film and not get bored. The opening scene involves the primary cast talking about different songs that were popular at the time, and about tipping waitresses. It has very little to do with the plot, but serves as a great introduction to these characters, as well as the way the dialogue is going to be structured from this point out.

What it doesn’t prepare you for is the aggressive nature that the film takes after the robbery attempt goes south. These people start out as likable, as we don’t really know them. When things don’t quite work out, they are at each others throats constantly, using as much colorful language as they know in order to make the point that they’re angry. Excluding the flashbacks, and one character who proves that he is a sociopath, nobody smiles after the heist goes wrong. Everyone is always yelling at one other character or another, even though Mr. Pink wishes that everyone remain “professional”.

When the Reservoir Dogs doesn’t work, it really drags. The majority of these moments come from Mr. Orange’s scenes, because they generally consist of him whining about being shot during the heist. Tim Roth, in these situations, is painful to watch, and I found myself hoping that the bullet wound would kill him, just so that we didn’t have to put up with his character any more. He’s good in Orange’s flashback scene, but for most of the film, he’s annoying and playing up his injury way too much.

The other actors are much better, if only because they’re consistently good. Each character is unique in both the way that they act and the way they are written and acted. Even though we don’t like these people, they’re interesting and we want to continue to learn more about them. Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi and Lawrence Tierney are the highlights, but the majority of the cast is really good, primarily thanks to the way they are written; like I mentioned earlier, you could just listen to these people talk for an hour and a half — them doing things is a bonus.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we quite get enough explanation by the end of the film. We’re left wanting a lot more than we’re given, even though we’re given quite a bit. When the credits began to roll, I wondered if that was it, or if I had fallen asleep for half of an hour. It felt like that was the amount of content that still needed to be presented. However, if you want more, that generally means that what you’re given must have been pretty solid. That’s the case here.

Reservoir Dogs is a film that explains a lot about an event that we never get to see, but the event isn’t ultimately what’s important. The characters are what matters, but we don’t get the same level of explanation for all of them. I wanted more of this, and less about the heist. The latter didn’t matter nearly as much as the dynamics and relationships between the characters. It’s still an incredibly compelling, entertaining and interesting film, and something that I would definitely suggest giving a watch if you haven’t already.

Inglourious Basterds

As a general rule, I dislike long movies. Not all of them, as the good ones make their lengthy runtime count and are actually worth spending over two hours watching. But the majority of these films that are over two hours long usually don’t need to be. There’s usually a lot of fluff and scenes that could and likely should have been removed. In many cases, these movies suffer from pacing problems. Inglourious Basterds needs (just about) every minute that we’re given.

I say “just about” because there are still some scenes that could have been shortened. Not flat-out removed, but the long, drawn-out dialogue sequences that Tarantino specializes in were sometimes, but rarely, too long. Shortening those scenes up just a touch would have meant there are absolutely no pacing problems with the film, and since it’s engaging from start to finish, it would just play out as an incredible film instead of just a very, very good one.

The main plot as far as I can see doesn’t involve the titular “Basterds”, who are a group of American soldiers stuck in Nazi-occupied France whose goal is, and I quote, “killin’ Nazis”. They’re led by Brad Pitt whose character is a comedian. He doesn’t take anything seriously, which is nice considering the majority of his scenes involve gunfights or the scalping, (removing the scalp), of Nazis. But like I said, the movie isn’t really about him or his group of soldiers.

Instead, the plot focuses on a young Jewish cinema owner named Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent), who escaped from the Nazis years prior and is in hiding under the name Emmanuelle Mimieux. After a young German soldier (Daniel Brühl) becomes infatuated with her, she ends up hosting the premier of a film showing a three-day event where 300 allied troops were killed by one man. Attending this film are the leaders of the Nazi party. Shosanna, someone who had her family killed by the Nazis decides that this will be a good time for revenge, planning to burn down the cinema with the Nazis trapped inside.

Now, the Basterds end up planning something similar, except they plan to infiltrate the cinema and blow it up with sticks of dynamite. On their trail is a Nazi detective Hans (Christoph Waltz), who always seems to know what’s up. We witness this in the film’s marvelous opening scene where he discovers where some Jews are hiding. Oh, and every time Waltz is on the screen, you witness a wonderful performance that is half serious, half satirical, but wonderful all the same.

Unfortunately for the plot, it never seems like the American Basterds have much point to exist. Sure, they provide some of the film’s better scenes, and we’re rooting for them to succeed, but they seem more like a backup plan than anything else. Shosanna appears to have everything under control, and without them interfering, she’d have no problem burning a large portion of the Nazi Party to the ground. It’s refreshing though that they aren’t the ones to complicate her plan, because for a large part of the film, I was ready to believe that they would mess things up.

Actually, the twists that all occur at the end are the most surprising part about Inglourious Basterds. There are a lot of surprises at the end of the journey, some that I’ll admit I definitely didn’t see coming. The script is also really humorous, especially in scenes involving either Pitt’s or Waltz’s character. A word of warning though: A large potion of the film is not in English. Probably a good 80% of it is in either German or French, meaning you’ll be reading a lot of subtitles. For those who dislike this, you’ll want to stay clear of this film.

The majority of the film is dialogue oriented, but not with dialogue meant to advance the plot farther than required at that moment. Most of the time is spent with characters playing against one another, trying to make sure that the other doesn’t determine how many truths are being hidden from them. This gives almost every scene a great deal of tension which helps to keep things interesting. And when there is a short break in the drama created this way, we get a short but not unwelcome action scene just to remind us that yes, Quentin Tarantino can do still do those. They’re violent and gory but much shorter than some of Tarantino’s previous films. But we don’t need much of them with how well the rest of the film works out.

Inglourious Basterds ends up being a great film whose only problems come from slightly overlong dialogue scenes and the fact that the Basterds don’t really play a crucial role in the film. I can see why they’re included, but having them working towards accomplishing a similar task as someone who can easily pull it off seems like an odd decision. Regardless, the film is full of tension and excitement that keeps you on the edge of your seat — as long as you don’t mind reading a great deal of subtitles.

Fireproof The Giants Like Potatoes (Our Christian Movie Themed Podcast)

The latest episode of the Box Office Boredom Podcast is now up for your listening pleasure.   It features a discussion of Christian films, and Christianity in Hollywood.  What do these films do well, and what do they need to improve upon?  Are the successful films, or self serving, heavy handed films that need a lot of work before they can compete with the mainstream genre flicks?

Joining Jason in the discussion is longtime friend and Pastor, Jeremy Geerdes as we delve headlong into this topic.  The podcast this month definitely has some Christian overtones, but don’t expect us to just be religious fan boys.  We’ve tried to objectively evaluate this topic and encourage people from all faiths and beliefs to take part and hit us up with some feedback via the contact form on BoxOfficeBoredom.com.

Also joining us by supplying a wealth of background noises are Jeremy’s children who provide us with some nice sound effect, including the sound of a wind up car zooming past at some point in the show.  (Prizes offered to the 1st  person who emails us with the exact time this happens in the audio!)

Films mentioned in this episode are Fireproof, Facing The Giants, Flywheel, Faith Like Potatoes, Saved!, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia and a mention of Sherwood Films upcoming project Courageous.  Enjoy the show and give us some feedback!

We also encourage you to join our online discussion page by becoming a fan on Facebook. Become a fan of BoxOfficeBoredom.com and join in the debate.

If you aren’t a subscriber to the podcast, subscribe via the link on our sidebar and get every new episode downloaded into Itunes or your favorite podcast software. If you want to be a one- time listener (but why would you just want to listen to just one?), click Here and it will take you directly to a embedded QuickTime file in a new window.

I’ve been venturing headlong into Christian cinema over the last few weeks to try and prep myself even more our latest podcast. As many of you already know, I am a God fearing believer but I have a pretty diverse taste for all kinds of cinema. I try my very best to find at least something that is good in every film, but the film Faith Like Potatoes challenged me to do just that.

The film, Faith Like Potatoes is the story of a Scottish born, South African farmer who is on the verge of going bankrupt. His large plantation like farm has served him well over the years but he and his family are forced to start over again and build a farm from the ground up. Working the land is tough, and he faces a language barrier with his hired hands, the Zulu people. Under tremendous stress and mental and physical anguish, the farmer lashes out at anything and everyone blaming his problems and troubles on the world. With his relationships strained and damaged and his new farm quickly becoming another failed attempt, he turns to God and learns that through Christ all things are possible. Using his new found faith he devotes his life to teaching others and trying to show them that faith in God can transform lives.

To be honest, I quickly realized that films like Faith Like Potatoes are the reason that films with Christian themes have such a bad reputation. The film is way too heavy handed, and tries to ram the Christian themes down your throat without any trace of subtlety. I’m not against a Christian theme in a film, but Faith Like Potatoes is trying way too hard to get their point across. There’s no need to use a sledge hammer to pound in a nail when a tiny ball pen hammer will suffice, however no one ever shared this information with the makers of Faith Like Potatoes. Post conversion, they made sure that the farmer mentioned that he was giving all “glory to God” in every phrase he spoke. Again, as a Christian I know that the goal of all man is to try and give glory to God in all things but the poor writing in this film makes it seem like the farmer is giving a poorly contrived play by play of his life.

On the subject of writing, this film just lacked any hints of quality. We jumped too quickly from scene to scene, seemingly resolving every foreseeable problem with a quick summation of “He gave glory to God and now all is well.”  Even the farmer’s conversion was very abrupt. This is a man who lashes out to everyone he knows, and refused to go to church and yet upon hearing even 2 minutes of the preacher’s “Come to Jesus” speech miraculously converts his life and is building orphanages for children in the town. The sudden 180 degree turn that occurs is almost so perfect that it is unbelievable. He seems to lack any further struggles or slips just simply because he has accepted Christ.

The storyline weaves its way through a two hour run time only to find that a lack luster story mixed with poor lighting, poor acting and even worse dialogue between characters. While I kept feeling like I should really like the characters I felt there was no on screen chemistry between the farmer and his wife and the farmer’s interaction with people. I’m not sure if I can attribute that to the actor’s performance or the lines written for him, but the whole film rested upon his shoulders and just fell flat.

The film builds to a point where a great drought is upon the land, and despite all the other farmers just saying crops won’t grow this year and closing up shop, our “hero” plants potatoes to honor God, knowing that they will provide a bountiful harvest. While everyone laughs, the farmer tends to his potatoes and calls the entire town to help him harvest them, having not even checked to see if they grew. Low and behold, shock of all shocks, they grew a plenty and everyone rejoices and gives thanks to God. I feel like I know what the film was attempting with this plot point, but like all things in Faith Like Potatoes, it was done so heavy handed and poorly that it makes it almost humorous.

Perhaps what bothers me most about this film is the fact that it felt like the makers of this film set out to make a moving film that was supposed to bring people to Christ. Instead they created a preachy, self serving, low budget film that makes it very easy for people to mock Christianity and Christian film makers. Some of the best films with “Christian” values can reach others with out cramming it down your throat. By the end of Faith Like Potatoes I realized I stand a better chance of trying to proselytize to a person after watching Iron Man than I do watching a film like Faith Like Potatoes with them. I for one find that to be disheartening; A film that is aimed at trying to bring people to Christ can be done so poorly that it actually has the complete opposite effect on the people it’s trying to reach. Somewhere there is a Christian themed film that actually achieves this purpose, but Faith Like Potatoes is simply not it.

?>