Review - Shutter Island

Shutter Island comes to us from acclaimed and academy award winning director Martin Scorsese (The Departed, Goodfellas, The Aviator, many more). Shutter Island is a mystery thriller starring Leonardo Dicaprio as a U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels. Teddy and a fellow marshal have taken a job on Shutter Island, an island with a hospital for dangerous and mentally unstable criminals, where they are tasked to find out about a missing patient. As you can probably expect from the previews, things are not quite as they seem. I will caution you however and note that the previews are misleading. It is not a horror movie. It has some scary parts, but it is NOT a horror movie. Some people are going into it wanting that, which is why I warn.

From the outset, the audience is put in the position of mystery solving. We are presented with situations that just aren't "right," we see things that can't possibly be, unanswerable questions are everywhere, and all authority figures are reluctant to divulge anything. We are meant to be both confused and curious. It is an extremely effective technique that keeps the audience guessing and not-quite-sure, always waiting for the inevitable reveal.

I'm not going to spoil anything, so don't worry. There is a special place in hell for people that spoil movies that are based around a reveal. It's not too much to say that your questions while watching Shutter Island will in fact be answered - basically every single one of them. I will say this though... there is a second "twist" moment that most people I saw the movie with didn't catch or understand. If you catch it, in my mind it is better than the main reveal. It makes the movie. So keep your ears open for one specific line of dialogue near the end. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Scorsese's direction of Shutter Island is incredible. The shots are extremely well framed. A special mention needs to be made for his dream sequences though. They are beyond great. I was completely taken by them. The dreams are absolutely stunningly gorgeous and disturbing, with amazing imagery, tension, and general creepiness. There were no other times in the movie that I was as glued to the screen as I was during the dream sequences.

The score for the movie was also top-notch. I would never choose to play it while I study or write blogs or anything; it isn't that kind of a score. It's perfect for Shutter Island and not much beyond that. It is tension inducing and nerve frying, yet filled with beauty and love in just the right moments.

It goes without saying that the acting is also great. When your cast includes the likes of Leonardo Dicaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Jackie Earle Haley, and Ben Kingsly, not much can go wrong. Thus, I shall move on to the negatives. Most of the special effects were fantastic, but one shot in both the trailer and movie continues to bug me. There's an overhead shot showing the old Civil War part of the hospital that just looks entirely computer generated. There's a chance that it isn't even computer generated, but it sure looks that way. Also, there was a sequence in a cave that I was completely bored by. It was way too long and had way too much exposition, so much so that I didn't even know what the characters were talking about by the end of it. Finally, I thought the main reveal lasted a little too long. I'm glad all questions were answered, but it took a lot of time to answer each one. Having said that, I think the reveal was less for the audience in that moment as it was for the characters involved in the reveal. Even though the audience already knew the reveal, the length of the sequence was probably because the characters actually needed time to deal with that reveal. Seeing how they dealt with it was in fact interesting.

So. Shutter Island. Should you see it? Yes. Instead of asking who this movie is for, I'm going to switch it up and say who it isn't for. It is not for people that dislike movies filled with dialogue, dislike having to give complete focus to a movie, dislike being unnerved/creeped out, or dislike movies with people suffering from mental illnesses. At 2 hours and 18 minutes, it is also a commitment to sit through, though it is shorter than Avatar, and that movie did phenomenally well with the public so run-time may not actually be a factor with most people. If you are none of those things, then you should see Shutter Island. And remember what I said... pay attention at the very end.

Potential based on Preview: 7/10
Actual Movie: 9/10

Reviews - An Education and The Lives of Others

I saw An Education a few weeks ago in my ongoing mission to watch all of the nominees for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year. I did the same thing last year when there were only 5 movies to watch, and I only saw 4 of them (never caught Frost/Nixon). This year there are 10 nominees. I've seen 8. Still have Precious and A Serious Man remaining. We'll see if I end up seeing those. Anyways, I'm completely off subject on what a review should be.

An Education is about a 16 year old girl, Jenny, in Britain in the 60s at an all girls school. Jenny wants adventure and she doesn't see any point in the things they are teaching her in school. She's obsessed with the French language, art, classical music, fashion, etc. She's basically similar to what we would now call a hipster. She ends up finding this adventure in a man in his 30s, David. Like The Lives of Others below, this movie is about the transformation of a character. It's primarily a love story, but it's so much more as well. It's about being realistic, the necessity of schooling, what it means to grow older, and finding purpose in life. I really enjoyed this movie. I wouldn't rank it above some of the other Oscar nominees out there, but it's still very good. It also manages to get its story across while not moving past PG-13 content, so that goes in its favor in my book too. That definitely makes it a more accessible film anyways.


Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 8.5/10



The Lives of Others takes place in East Germany in 1984. It's about the "stasi," the people that are constantly monitoring and surveying suspects that oppose the government. More specifically, it's about one member of the group, Wiesler, who has to monitor a famous writer. Wiseler is an extremely dynamic and round character, consistently being presented with situations that change him and his philosophies about his role and the government's role in the citizens lives.

This is a very very good movie. For one, it is a subject that I find incredibly interesting and thought provoking. Surveillance is still commonplace in many countries across the world, and it has had an effect on countless lives over the years. More than just having an interesting subject, The Lives of Others succeeds greatly as a film. The tension in the drama is spot on. The characters are all believable, from being realistically despicable to lovable. And the ending... I won't give anything away, but the ending is awesome. The ending made the slightly slower middle portion of the movie totally worth it. I was dissapointed in 2007 when Pan's Labyrinth lost the Best Foreign Language Film to The Lives of Others. I still think I prefer Pan's Labyrinth, but I can completely see why this movie ended up taking the Oscar.

So who is this movie for? It is subtitled so that might turn some people off. Also, you can imagine the kind of content a movie has when it is based around being able to have video and audio surveillance in someone's house. It deservedly gets an R rating. That may also come from its European creators. Knowing those things, decide for yourself if it's for you or not.


Potential based on Preview: 9/10
Actual Movie: 9/10

Reviews - 3 okay flicks, 1 great movie

The Blind Side is a very well made feel-good movie. I enjoyed it. I'm sure everyone who was going to see it has probably seen it by now, so I don't feel the need to praise it any more than it has been praised in those areas.

Personally, I enjoyed the first half of the movie a lot more than the second half. I found Michael's story pre-highschool-football to be much more compelling than everything that happened to him once he got good at the sport. That's not to say the second half of the movie was bad. My interest in the story just began to wane. I really did not care in the least which college football team he chose to play for, and that was the primary focus of the second half.

I guess the only other thing I disliked about the film was the predictability. Yes, I know that it is a true story, and yes I did know before going into the movie that he was going to join the NFL. It's about the journey, not the destination. I went into the movie knowing virtually nothing about the journey, but I was consistently 2 or 3 steps ahead of where it was going at all times. The situations were predictable, and I could say some lines before they even came out of peoples' mouths. I like not knowing those kinds' of things. Not knowing keeps me on my toes, engaged, and not bored. That's purely the fault of a loose script, not the actual true story. As I said though, it is a good movie and I'd recommend it to just about anyone, unless you don't have a heart to begin with. I suppose if you don't have a heart to begin with, maybe you should see it just to find out what your missing.

Potential based on Preview: 4/10
Actual Movie: 7/10



Rushmore is the second film by Wes Anderson, director of such movies as The Royal Tenenbaums and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I loved both of those movies so I decided to give one of his earlier ones a go. Rushmore is a really good movie, but I like some of his other movies better. It's a funny movie, it's got a creative story, and the characters are all very hilarious, but something about the pacing kept me detached. By the halfway point I was ready for it to reach its finale even though it clearly wasn't in a place where it could do that. My opinion on the film may be affected by a few things though. The DVD quality is absolutely terrible, and I believe other than VHS that's the only way the movie can be seen. It's a widescreen DVD made for a 3:4 television, meaning if you play it on a 16:9/16:10 TV it stretches everything. I ended up watching it on my computer monitor, which kept it at the right aspect ratio, but that experience is never as good as a TV. When I watch movies on my computer, I'm always distracted. Hence why this review doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Uh. Yeah.

Overall Score: 6.5/10

Dark City is clearly a movie of the 1990s. However, it's themes feel like they came from the 2000s. Here's what I mean by that.

The whole movie feels like it was filmed on a backlot or in a warehouse. It tries to create a large city, but due to the technological limitations of the 90s, the scale is hard to perceive and each set piece feels like it was made of styrofoam, which it probably was. The 90s was when CGI began to take off, but it was still very lacking, and you can tell it from this movie. Most of the special effects are cheesy and borderline laughable.

The story is straight out of the 2000s. Not until then did we really begin seeing a lot of crazy, mindbending, unique stories. Most people say it started with The Matrix is 1999, but I'd argue that this hit those things first in 1998. After that we started getting movies like Memento, Eternal Sunshine, Donnie Darko... movies that are all about our perception of the world around us and how things somehow become twisted. This is that. And it's great. It's very sci-fi and unbelievable, but still quite cool. Don't let the 90s feel put you off.

Overall Score: 7.5/10



Two things: I really really really liked this movie. A lot of people will really really really not like this movie. There. Review done. Okay, I'll say a bit more. There Will Be Blood is a historical epic that takes place in the very early 20th century focused on 30 years of a guy in the oil business in Texas. The closest thing I can compare it to is The Godfather. It's very long, very slow, very detailed, and not very bloody at all. Normally those would be negatives for me, but the story is too incredible for me to be put off. I've heard this movie being compared to No Country For Old Men. That only makes sense for three reasons: It takes place out west, it's really slow, and both movies were nominated for Best Picture during the same year. Other than that, they are completely different. I hated No Country for Old Men.

What really intrigues me about There Will Be Blood are the characters. Almost no one is likable. The main character and oil entrepreneur, Daniel Plainview, is almost completely unlikable. He's all about business, he takes advantage of people, he lies, and he's extremely greedy. The pastor of the local church, Eli Sunday, contrasts Daniel's dis-likability by being completely unlikable himself. He's all about furthering himself, he uses God to gain power, he lies, and he takes advantage of situations. Both Daniel and Eli hide behind a facade of goodness, but from the start of the movie you realize there is very little goodness in either person. What I found interesting is that at one point in the movie, Daniel says, "There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking." I feel like the director/writer of There Will Be Blood takes that line and tries to give us that same view, seeing nothing good in anyone. It is both a compelling and a disturbing experience to watch this movie.

Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 9.5/10

"Can you see by your lonely light of day"

I'm sitting in Atlanta Bread Company, drinking coffee, listening to the Up in the Air soundtrack, doing nothing. Every now and then I'll check out digg or/film or the obvious facebook. Nothing is happening. The internet is boring (although this page on Panda cubs in China is pretty dang awesome). I think some kids in here are playing tag. Is that allowed? I keep feeling the wind rush over my ear buds as they pass. If I was studying I may be annoyed. I'm not studying though. It's creating more of an atmosphere than anything.

I like Panera Bread and other coffee shops better than Atlanta Bread Company, but you miss something in those places. This place has variety. I think it may just be the side of town that it's on. Southeast Huntsville is slightly less than diverse. I enjoy the diversity. I don't enjoy it for any particular reason... it's just nice. ABC is currently filled with a number of college students, an indian couple, two older black ladies talking, a father and daughter of asian decent talking about school together, an emo couple quietly eating and not talking with each other, an older wealthier (in appearance) white couple talking, a homeless man hanging outside, an older interracial couple in the corner, and then that huge family of kids I was referring to that were playing tag. And then there's me: 20-something white sweater-wearing male with a macbook and a cup of coffee with ear buds in typing away at a blog. Hah. As I stereotype people, I become my own stereotype. Nice.

Variety truly is the spice of life. I'm more comfortable around people just like me but I love being alone amongst people I'm completely different from and cannot relate to in the least. Maybe it's because I love stories so much. When you're surrounded by middle-class/upper-class white people, the stories may be slightly different, but there is going to be some relatability between everyone. Here, the stories are completely different. Every person grew up in different situations, different places in the world, speaking different languages, having different world-views. Chances are ridiculously high that I won't ever learn any of those stories. That's fine though; I may be less interested if I knew the stories. Then again, maybe stories have nothing to do with why I enjoy being around people I'm different from. Maybe I'm just talking like I know what I'm talking about. Hmmm?? The probability is high.

As much as I enjoy being out and about in society on a Saturday with friends, being alone in society is just as nice. There was a segment in Up in the Air where Geroge Clooney was convincing a guy that your favorite memories involve being with other people. I completely agree. I'd go a step further and say that most things I actually remember involve me being with other people. I probably won't ever remember specifically sitting here in Atlanta Bread Company on February 6th, 2010. It definitely won't stick out. I will remember the atmosphere though. I will remember, even if it's subconscious, what this place feels like. When you're with other people, you can't soak up your surroundings. There are pros and cons to each scenario. I think we need both. At least I know that I need both.

Review - The Book of Eli

I didn't expect much from this movie. It looked like a lame action movie set in an exact replica of the Fallout 3 environment (see below). To top that off, Rotten Tomatoes only gave it a 45% (based off of an average of positive vs. negative reviews throughout the internet/world). Not only that, but I had personal conversations with people who said it was bad, dissapointing, and not worth watching. Then, all of a sudden, a few people said it was good and worth checking out... specifically Wes and Seth, two people that I often clash and disagree with when it comes to movies they like. So to be honest, I'm not sure why I went to go see it today during my very large break. I did go see it though, and I'm glad I did. Their taste was spot on. I may have liked it for different reasons though.

The Book of Eli has been very falsely advertised. It is not an action movie. It has some action, is definitely violent and fairly mature, but most of the movie is completely action-less. My favorite part about the movie is that it takes its themes and its story so seriously, and does a great job of it in the process.

In my review of To Save a Life, I mentioned that I really wish Christianity was brought into Hollywood more often, rather than Christians staying on the outside making their own flicks. This movie was made in Hollywood, and it clearly has Christian themes (though it does water stuff down). I don't think it's spoiling anything to say what the book is, so I'll go ahead and say it... the book is The Bible. I think it's actually better knowing what the book is going into it. The movie takes The Bible extremely seriously. It gives God power, it gives The Bible power, and it shows the true power of faith. As a Christian, I really appreciated how it handled those things. On top of that, it was about human power on Earth and our desire to misuse God and His creation. I could see a non-Christian walking away from the movie still believing that The Bible is a tool to lead the ignorant in order to gain power for oneself. That message is there, to a point. As a Christian, I walk away from The Book of Eli recognizing that God can be twisted around for ugly and upsetting purposes, but if a person truly follows after God, the power of the Bible is so much greater and more meaningful.. It was pretty powerful.

There were some negative things about the movie. I thought that most of the hillbilly characters were laughably acted. Also, some of the scene transitions were pretty gimmicky. At first I thought they were cool transitions, and then I became distracted by the technique. Some of the violence was very over the top. That's not to say I dislike violence in movies; I just thought that some of it didn't fit and was purely there for thrills. The good definitely outweighed the bad in The Book of Eli. I won't spoil anything, but I really really liked the end of the movie. I admit that I saw what was coming before it came, and I was in fact pretty close, but I definitely missed something big. Now you're curious.

So who is this movie for? Not everyone. I'll be the first to admit that. There is a lot of cursing in it, and the few action scenes are all pretty violent. Outside of those action scenes, the movie moves pretty slowly. I loved the pacing, but if you like faster paced films, I think you could be bored. If you enjoy very bleak and not very uplifting post-apocalyptic movies and are interested in seeing how Hollywood handles a movie about the significance of The Bible, go see it. Don't hesitate. But I can't stress this last thing enough... this is not an action movie!

Potential based on Preview: 6/10
Actual Movie: 8.5/10

Review - To Save a Life

Before starting the actual review, I have to set something up that some of you may or may not disagree with. I believe that Christian movies need to be compared to "secular" movies, not to other Christian movies. I feel the same way about music. A Christian band might be great compared to other Christian bands, but if it isn't good when compared to a secular band, then who cares?? So many people throw around the term "Christian" with relation to media as if it is a genre. It is NOT a genre. It is a theme. WAY-FM plays a ton of different genres (rock, r&b, acoustic, rap, pop, alternative) all with the same theme of being Christian. That's one reason I don't like it; when I turn on the radio, I'm in the mood for a specific genre, not a random collection of music with the same theme. But that's another subject. The point is that Christian-themed movies need to be compared to other movies in their respective genres. To Save a Life should be compared to any and all movies that are dramas. That does actually include other Christian-themed dramas like Fireproof, which I'm sure I'll compare it to a lot.

Okay, review. I'm going to start with the negatives because I enjoy pointing out negatives more than I do positives. That's kind of twisted of me, but whatever. If you want the positives, skip past this point.

To put it plainly, To Save a Life has too much going on. Each of the individual stories that are affecting the main character, Jake, are interesting in and of themselves, but there are just too many of them. Specifically, I didn't feel like the story involving his parents' was necessary. That could have been a movie by itself, and it was effective by itself, but it felt like clutter. The most important stories that really boosted the movie's theme involved Jake, his girlfriend, the outcasts, and a youth group. They were what the movie was about. The parents were just something else to throw in to make Jake's situation that much more dramatic. I felt it was too much.

In addition to the parents, I felt like the pastor's kid (PK) plot was way too over the top. All it did was make me angry. That's not to say I don't think a kid like that could really exist, but I felt like it was an extreme example of cruelty and maliciousness. Yes, we all know PKs are typically kind of bad, but this guy was another level of bad. I'm not talking about some of the troubled things he does, I'm talking about his passion to sabotage Christianity. To Save a Life uses other extreme situations to get points across, but I felt like they worked. Even if they are rare in real life (some of them are rare, some of them definitely are not rare), they do in fact happen and people do have to deal with them. I'm not against extreme scenarios, but the PK caused To Save a Life to lose some believability.

To end my list of negatives, I'll say that the main characters, specifically Jake and Amy, looked far too old for their ages. That didn't matter so much in their time as seniors, but when they were freshmen it was glaring and very distracting. They made Amy look younger by giving her pigtails and made Jake look younger by giving him a baseball cap. Really??

Those are my negatives. Now to the positives.

To Save a Life is the best Christian-themed movie I've ever seen. Easily. It blows Fireproof and Facing the Giants out of the water. They shouldn't even be put in the same category. They are horrible, awful, badly written, badly acted, badly directed, and poorly realized movies. To Save a Life is none of those things.

According to Box Office Mojo, To Save a Life cost $500,000 to make. Just to check, Fireproof cost the exact same amount. They cost the same, yet Fireproof looks like a $10,000 movie while To Save a Life looks like it has a budget. Visually it's great. The cinematography is good, the sets are good, the costume design is good. The world felt real. Maybe some of the high school stuff was exaggerated, but I can't speak to that because I've never experienced California close-to-the-beach schools. To Save a Life used it's budget really really well.

The acting was surprisingly good. I don't know if those were real actors or not (as opposed to church members like in Fireproof), but they did a very good job. Award worthy? No, not really, but good enough that I never thought, "wow, that's poor acting!" They were believable. The script is really great as well. The script very rarely sounds stilted or unrealistic, which is more than even movies like Avatar can say. Not only that, but the story is effective. I was emotionally attached to the movie from beginning to end. I saw where some scenes were going (not always a bad thing), while many others were very unpredictable.

I can't talk about this movie without talking about how it handles Christianity. There were a lot of times that I felt uncomfortable and was even frustrated at what the movie was making Christians do on screen. It was lame. It was annoying. It was typical. And then the movie begins to attack itself and attack those annoying Christians! I was borderline shocked and slightly elated. I thought the movie was being hypocritical, then all of a sudden it points out the hypocrisy in Christians. Not only does To Save a Life hit all the Christian-movie-requirements (salvation scene, deep-in-prayer scene, watching a pastor preach scene) better than I've seen, but it also completely goes against the grain of the Christian culture that annoys me so much. It's a PG13 movie with cursing, blood, drugs, drinking, and even implied-sex. Finally! We have a Christian movie that doesn't dumb down real life to such an extreme that it is no longer real.

I came into To Save a Life with a really critical attitude. I wanted to see a movie with a Christian theme that was done well just as much as I wanted to have another reason to bash the annoyance of Christian culture. That's a messed up way of thinking and there is something wrong with it, but honestly I'm really glad the first thing happened so that I didn't have to do the second. To Save a Life is a genuinely good movie. Will it be effective for non-Christians? Most of me says no, but that's only because I don't think non-Christians will see it. Also, this movie still is a Christian production with Christian labeled all over it, and I don't think that will ever be as effective as a Christian movie made within the Hollywood system of business. That's sad, but true. Unless non-Christians are really searching or unless they want to seek out more reasons to pick on Christians, they won't see this movie.

Let me end by saying that To Save a Life desperately needs more marketing. Tell your church about it, tell your youth ministers about it, and spread the word that they need to see it. I would hate for the only good Christian-themed and produced movie to do poorly when compared to crapfests like Fireproof. Go see it. Tell others' to see it. Normally I wouldn't support marketing so much, but I want Christian culture to recognize that being real matters and is more important than conforming to your base and old ways of thinking. The only way that message will be sent is if this makes more money than dogpiles like Fireproof. Right now it's at over $2,000,000 (a profit), but Fireproof made $33,000,000. Shameful.

To Save a Life is not without fault, but none of those faults are debilitating. It remains a very solid piece of film, and I believe that it is genuinely good. Is it the best movie I've seen this year? Well, hah, if we're talking about 2010 releases, then quite possibly it is. But it doesn't appear to be the type of title that will hold that throne very long. The score below is when I compare it to all of film. If I were to simply compare it to other Christian-themed movies, it would easily get a 10/10.

Potential based on Preview: 4/10 (I found the preview to be borderline incomprehensible and completely overstuffed)
Actual Movie: 8/10

A Tale of Two Blogs

The main difference between this blog and my last blog is in content. My last blog was literally a journal. It was where I poured out my thoughts and emotions and life-happenings to the world in all of their glory, sometimes vaguely and other times directly. It was a place to empty those thoughts to the entire world in hopes that someone would read them and know me better. That was my biggest struggle back then, having a desire to be known but having no one to know me. Thus, I took the grenade approach, where I threw a grenade out, watched it explode, and hoped that some of the shrapnel would hit someone. Anyone.

It was unhealthy and I know that now. It's amazing how the use of technology for communication in hundreds of ways can actually hinder our connections with real people. That blog was a pretty good example of that; however, I can't say I would have had better connections with people without the blog either. It's an interesting scenario. That's why this blog consists of specific and topical posts (for the most part). Some you may find certain posts interesting, while some you may not care in the least about them. Whatever. I'm not writing for specific individuals to read (well, sometimes I do). I write about movies, ideas, opinions, specific things that in the moment I have some semblance of affection towards. Either that, or I'm royally miffed about something and if I don't write my opinion I'll have a hard time going to sleep. That happens a lot too.

Having switched to this format has created a problem for me. Way-back-when, I could post daily and I always had something to say (no matter how emo). Now that I've switched to a topical format, I'm lucky to post twice in a week. I don't like that at all. I like writing. I like sharing random stuff. I would like to do it more often. I don't have stuff to write about like I used to, unless of course you want me to transfer my actual journal to the world wide web, God forbid I ever even consider that.

So what am I writing about here? Good question! I'm writing about wanting to write about more. I posed a conundrum on twitter today (follow @andrewols, BAM! self advertisement) stated thusly:

I'm in the mood to be strongly opinionated about something and then to write about it. Problem is, I can't think of anything right now.

If you have any random or interesting ideas, let me know. Chances are I won't write about them. But I am curious to hear what you think would be interesting. Sarah (@sarahlollar) started y'all off with a pretty good idea that I'm not going to write about because I would be required to become too personal about a multitude of situations, but it definitely is a topic I'm quite passionate about, and a topic I ever-so-slightly even hit on in this post:

How about the influence of technology on modern communication? It seems conversations can be misinterpreted quite easily this way

Good idea indeed. What are yours??