The Last Five Years rated PG-13 for brief strong language, sexual content, and some drug use

I watched this film at the suggestion of an acquaintance.  I was thankfully warned that it doesn't have a happy ending.  I don't usually like movies with sad endings although if I am prepared for the sad ending I will at least not be annoyed with/dislike the person who recommends/shows me the film.   At the time that I watched the film it was on Netflix.

When I watched the film I had the slight annoyance of having the person that I watched the film with talking to me during the film.  To be fair, the person was trying to be helpful and didn't realize that I found their behavior annoying.  I did inform the person after the film and they apologized.

I sound a little rude I know but let me explain.  When I am watching a film for the first time, I personally believe that quiet is best for first-time watching.  I extend this courtesy to people that I am showing a film to for the first time.  For me personally it is a way for me to immerse myself more fully in the experience of watching films.  Everything goes away (for the most part) except the characters on screen and their story.  I can fully appreciate the story and better understand what is going on even if I don't particularly like the film.  But I digress.

The film opens with a sad Cathy (played very well by Anna Kendrick) singing mournfully about her husband Jaime (also played very well by Jeremy Jordan).  Something has happened and they appear to be separated but the audience isn't made fully aware at that moment.  The film then moves on to when Cathy and Jaime first become lovers.  The movie goes on to tell the tale of how after the two date for a bit, they become married, then fall out of love and separate.  It also vacillates between "the past" and "the present".  In the interim the movie also talks about each character  individually and their individual emotions/experiences/etc.  The music of the film was excellent.  The writing was excellent.  The movie did a great job of putting you right there with the characters through the use of music, setting, colors, etc.  You might not always agree with the characters but you still saw where they were coming from.

Ultimately I couldn't help but feel more sorry for Cathy.  Anna Kendrick did a great job of portraying this young woman in a very sincere, genuine way.  Every action, every song, every look was just great.  Anna Kendrick really made you understand where the character was coming from.

Jeremy Jordan did a great job portraying Jaime.  I liked him at first because he's going against tradition to be with Cathy (rather romantic which is right up my alley).  I further liked him because he was endearing and sweet.  When he became selfish and got worse from there, Jeremy made it to where I could understand where the character was coming from also in a genuine sincere manner. I even understood why Jaime ends the relationship although I wasn't happy about it.

Sometimes, in films where love doesn't work out for whatever reason, I don't always understand why characters do the things that they do.  That wasn't the case with this film.  It was very real-life but it also maintained a level of brightness.  Sort of saying that even though things get bad they will inevitably get better.

This probably isn't a film that will make you cry necessarily (unless you happen to be going through something like this in real life).  It does make you appreciate what you have or at least want to show appreciation for what you have.  It does an excellent job of demonstrating the importance of communication especially in relationships.  Further it illustrates the importance of being honest particularly with yourself.

The movie gave the impression that if Jaime hadn't married Cathy right before experiencing his success then maybe things might have turned out differently.  The idea of course seems to be that Jaime wasn't ready for the seriousness of an exclusive relationship much less marriage whether following tradition or not as evidenced by his lack of fidelity.  Cathy also should have been more honest too in expressing what she wanted from Jaime rather than just going along with things until it was too late.

(As it turns out apparently this film is based on a true life situation so yay for everyone keeping it real.)

This film is rated PG-13 for language, some sexual scenes, and some drug use so maybe not a film for younger audiences.  I personally didn't notice offensive material but then again I wasn't watching it with the purpose of possibly displaying this for children.

Self/less rated PG-13 for some sexuality, violence, and language (This post has some spoilers in it)

When I watched the trailer for this picture, I was intrigued and wanted to see the picture. When I saw the picture I wasn't necessarily disappointed but I also didn't love the movie enough to own it. I think that it is an good movie worth watching at least once, definitely worth owning if you love it or are a big fan of anyone in this picture.

The basic plot of the picture involves a sick, very wealthy older man named Damian (played by Sir Ben Kingsley) deciding to undergo a radical procedure in which he takes over the body of a younger healthy man.

This offer is extended to him by a mysterious company.  He is chosen specifically because he happens to be very intelligent with regards to architecture and business. The company that performs the procedure feels that people who have much to offer the world in general with their gifts should be given the opportunity to continue living so that they can continue contributing their "great gifts" for the general improvement of society/the world/etc.

After undergoing the procedure the protagonist wakes up in Ryan Reynolds body. He naturally finds enjoyment in his new found youth and great health. The company further provides for his assimilation back into society with a new identity, funds, basically everything he could need to live and be happy. Also they help him by giving him medication to cope with the changes and give him counseling throughout his recovery.

Almost immediately after Damian undergoes the procedure he begins to have dreams/hallucinations (depending on your perspective I suppose) when he doesn't take his medication. The medication suppresses the dreams/hallucinations. Initially he rigorously follows the medication regimen if only because he is so disturbed by the images.

Then Damian starts to wonder more about the company, about the images, about the body he has taken over, etc. The dreams in particular bother him because at times they involve a child who seems to be his and a woman who seems to be his wife.

After some investigating he finds that the company has been less than forthcoming on the truth about everything that they have told him. As a result of his investigating he finds that he has unintentionally put the woman from his dreams and the child in danger and so he spends the rest of the movie trying to "fix things" for all intents and purposes.

The ending was very appropriate and over all the movie was, as I said, good in my opinion. The cast and acting were good, the story was good, it all made sense.

*******SPOILER ALERT*******
One of my biggest problems (spoiler alert) was regarding one of the villains in the picture and how Damian "treated" him so to speak. I thought it strange that Damian doesn't fully "deal" with this particular villain definitively until the end of the movie and I just thought that wasn't very intelligent on Damian's part. I suppose it is cold-blooded of me but I should think that if one keeps coming across the same person who is obviously intent on killing one then one should probably deal with them after the second maybe first time if only because it is pretty obvious after the second time that this guy isn't going to back off. I'm not saying that Damian necessarily needed to make him suffer (a quick death would have sufficed) but still.

I found it very interesting that when discussing this film with others (specifically people younger than myself) I came across a strange trend. For some reason, the younger people seemed to have something against Ryan Reynolds (mind you this was before Deadpool). To make it a little more strange, the comment that kept coming up was that his beautiful wife Blake Lively was out of his league.

Now I am in no position to say yay or nay. I personally think that they are a lovely couple and they seem to be very happy together. I truly hope that all works out well for them and that they get to live relatively "happily ever after".

What really puzzled me was what his wife has anything to do with his acting ability or even him as a person. It's one thing to infer, imply, or even say that someone might be an unsavory person if they consistently spend time with unsavory types or that someone is an intelligent person if they consistently spend time with intelligent people. I just think it makes absolutely no sense to say that Ryan Reynolds is a bad actor because he happens to have a beautiful wife. That's kind of like saying that someone is a bad teacher because they happen to have a very handsome husband. Whether the spouse/significant other is bad at what they do or not has nothing to do with how handsome/attractive their respective spouse/significant other is.

Fortunately out of the sea of voices rose one voice of some reason. He was kind enough to offer his opinion and I think that his opinion could be one of the real reasons why people might have something against Ryan Reynolds. I will not name him although hopefully he won't be bothered that I included his comments in this post. At the time, he expressed that for himself personally, he hasn't yet seen Ryan Reynolds in anything that particularly moved him or showcased excellent talent acting wise. He explained that for him Ryan Reynolds is ok at best, not bad but not great.

As for me I find Ryan Reynolds to be entertaining especially with his comedies (mostly because I'm most familiar with his comedies). I think that given his comedic abilities he shows promise regarding more dramatic roles. I think overall he was good in Self/less. He was definitely believable, his acting wasn't wooden in my opinion, as an added bonus he is pleasing to look at.

The Cave rated PG-13 for violence (This blog is chock full o' spoilers! ;P)

This movie watching occurred because I was flipping channels one day. I confused this film with the movie The Descent and that was the reason that I watched it.

By the way, this blog is just spoilers so if you are genuinely interested in watching this film you might not want to continue reading.

The basic plot is that there is a cave in the Carpathian Mountains that people want to explore and for reasons (or in one case no reason (?) and there are apparently monsters that may eat people (?) or at least infect them with something (?). When the picture opens we come across a group of soldiers who sound British.

I couldn't tell why they were keen on exploring this cave. Is there supposed to be treasure? Is it the tunnel to the center of the earth? Then there was the question of how they heard of this cave in the first place. As I said they all sounded British so why British soldiers come across a cave in the middle of nowhere in the Carpathian Mountains?

I mean the Carpathian Mountains aren't the largest mountain chain in the world nor are they the tallest but still a mountain chain isn't small. The Carpathian Mountains aren't exactly small especially in comparison to humans. It sounded like one of the soldiers came across the cave as a child but there was no further explanation other than that.

The cave is under an old church that has sinister looking murals that appear to reference monsters. Although this isn't very clearly explained the implication seems to be that the church is holding the monsters at bay. Naturally the soldiers decide to blow a hole in the middle of the church floor to open the cave. Not surprisingly the ancient church turns out to be fragile enough that the floor caves in under the soldiers causing all of the soldiers to fall into the cave. Unexpectedly there is an avalanche as the mountain literally falls on the church, trapping the men in the cave. I guess the writers didn't think it would be sufficient to just have the church collapse on the guys, they needed a mountain to fall on them. Whatever.

[This brings me to my logical and sincerely darkly comedic conclusion that "God hates them." For anyone reading this blog I will take time to elaborate and digress before continuing the plot summary of The Cave.

Years ago I made an effort to watch all of the movies on Bravo's Scariest Films list. A) Even though scary movies can scare me I'm a glutton for punishment. B) I was very curious about these films that people felt warranted the distinction of being considered the "scariest" films because they run the gamut of different types of scary.

While I watched the films on and off the list, I found that in a few scary movies that I have watched (one included in the list, the other two came out after the list was compiled) I observed that a few characters have exceptionally bad luck even for a horror picture. Nothing that they did could conceivably save them from their fate for unknown reasons. They just absolutely were not meant to survive and they also seemed to have to suffer extraordinarily dreadful fates that seemed a bit much even for horror pictures.

As a result, in an effort to take away from the horror and my own frustration, I came up with the intentionally darkly comedic idea that "God hates them." Somewhere, sometime, somehow these fictional characters did something so bad that there was nothing and no one who could or would save them from suffering. This of course leads to darkly comical, deliberately absurd ideas of what their respective "crimes" could be considering that in the horror pictures that they suffer in, they all seem to be genuinely nice people who wouldn't even harm a fly.

Mind you, before anyone starts to get heated, please let me add that I consider myself a fairly devout Christian. I take God seriously in general. But I also feel that He has a great sense of humor and surely He will understand that the phrase "God hates them" is a joke as it is intended to be. Obviously if you choose to be offended, I can appreciate that and I apologize.

So, going forth, if you read this blog, know that you will come across the phrase "God hates them" and now you know what that means. Now, back to The Cave.]

After the mountain traps the men, we hear creepy sounds that indicate monsters specifically to the audience. The men of course go "What's that?" Then we hear screaming as the monsters attack. Fast forward to present day. A scientist named Dr. Nicolai (played by Marcel Iures) discovers the caves, realizes that he needs experts so he calls in our protagonists to explore the cave.

In the scientist's case it is somewhat clear why he is interested in the cave in that he is doing scientific research. What scientific research specifically isn't coherently explained but I just assumed he was a geologist or at least a scientist specializing in caves (not sure what those are called so bear with me).

Our heroes (I'm using that word ironically) arrive after demonstrating to the audience that they are very capable divers and cave explorers. They have a nifty gun that shoots sonar (I think) and all they have to do is fire it into caves to get a lay of the caves. The data displays on their guns but also back wherever their computers are and presumably the rest of the team. The team is lead by Jack (played by Cole Hauser) and includes Jack's younger brother Tyler (played by Eddie Cibrian), Top Buchanan (played by Morris Chestnut), Charlie (played by Piper Perabo), Briggs (played by Rick Ravenello), and Strode (played by Kieran Darcy-Smith).

Accompanying them will be a doctor named Kate (played by Lena Headey) and a photographer named Alex (played by Daniel Dae Kim). Tyler is attracted to Kate and that's the most interesting thing that happens when the team first comes together. Once in the cave they set up a camp which is almost immediately affected by the monsters although the first monster that they encounter appears to be a vicious looking mole-like creature with fins, a new kind of possible amphibian.

Strode is our first "stupid" horror victim in that he decides to separate from his dive buddy Tyler and explore a cave. Naturally he gets attacked and possibly eaten by a monster.  There's no obvious blood, you can't see anything because the camera moves too much. 

I say possibly eaten because (SPOILER ALERT) it later becomes apparent that the monsters may have been men who changed into these creatures after being infected. Honestly anybody most likely would have seen that coming a mile away even if the writers hadn't been kind enough to give you hints. I will say that at least the hints weren't obnoxious meaning one wasn't hit over the head by them.

Tyler is yelled at because he might have a problem of separating from his dive buddies (at the beginning of the film we only see one instance of this behavior and somehow that is supposed to indicate that he is trouble because we never hear of another instance of this happening).

Just prior to Strode getting attacked, Kate and Dr Nicolai observe that there appear to be parasites in the mole creature and another salamander that we don't see (first definite clue again not annoyingly presented). While Strode was attacked he panicked and sent his personal propeller machine (I don't know what they are called but you hold on and steer while it swims for you) flying into a portion of the cave causing the cave to collapse. Jay and Top go to try to find Strode. They find a piece of Strode's scratched up/chewed up (kind of hard to say how he was killed honestly) dive suit. Jay gets attacked but he comes away with some pretty nasty scratches.

They  have twelve days until they are missed ( I think that is kind of stupid considering that they are going into a supposedly previously unexplored cave.  I mean how is anyone supposed to know that it takes 12 days or less to explore caves in a previously unexplored cave?  If this is unknown territory I should think that they would be missed much sooner as people in theory would be concerned about something happening to them "out in the middle of nowhere"). They decide (logically I might add even if they had less than twelve days to be missed) to try to get out another way. They know caves and would therefore know indicators of which way is out so this actually made a lot of sense to me.

Jay is leading. As they follow Jay the audience and the characters are given the impression that "something isn't right with Jay". He acts sort of strangely. I guess the intention was to give the impression that Jay's judgement is off so therefore we shouldn't trust him. Maybe he is deliberately leading them in the wrong direction. Whatever. Not surprising but not done in a bad way.

This leads to conflict. I get it. Team members get lost/killed/eaten something along the way. We learn that some of the creatures can fly. It doesn't appear that they can swim at first and then later Dr Nicolai apparently comes across the one that can swim. After Dr. Nicolai and Charlie are killed/eaten/whatever Kate, Briggs, and Alex lose trust in Jay's leadership and decide to go a different way. Jay, Top, and Tyler go a different way as well.

It is obvious by now that Jay is changing but it's still unclear how much, apart from physical changes. Before parting ways, Kate tells the group that she suspects that Jay is changing into one of the creatures because he was infected when he got attacked. Tyler doesn't want to believe her at first but begins to suspect that she was right after awhile.

Top gets injured due to faulty equipment although the movie implies that it is due to Tyler's carelessness. Whatever. Jay's group finds themselves in a chamber and Jay indicates that at the center of the lake in the chamber is the way out. Tyler decides to go back for the other three. Meanwhile Briggs has been attacked and the other two are running through the cave. Tyler catches up to Briggs after he's obviously mortally wounded. Oddly enough, Briggs's wounds come from stalactites which implies that the monster that attacked him threw him up and onto the ceiling of the cavern.

Either Tyler is not very bright or he's very optimistic in this instance because for some reason despite the extremely obvious severity of Briggs' wounds he still tries to save Briggs. It could be argued that Tyler is just distraught. Whatever. Prior to this instance Briggs and Tyler seemed to regularly bump heads so it didn't make a lot of sense to me for Tyler to be that upset by Briggs' death. But I digress.

Somehow (I couldn't figure this out) Tyler catches up to Alex and Kate. I couldn't figure out how they caught up to each other because Alex and Kate were literally running around through this vast network of caves and Tyler had no way of knowing where they went.

 While Tyler was finding them, Alex figured out that the monsters don't like the sensation/sound/whatever of the sonar guns that the team uses to map out caves. He proceeds to use the gun on the monsters for the brief amount of time that he is alive for the rest of the picture. Tyler, Alex, and Kate rejoin Top and Jay in the large cavern. Jay goes to retrieve a tank that the monsters have taken for reasons (?).

To further confirm that the monsters are in fact mutated/infected men the audience observes a tattoo that one of the soldiers from the beginning of the picture had on one of the monsters. The monsters attack killing Alex. Alex's death is the only clear cut death in this picture

. Jay makes a bomb by putting a flare into one of the rebreathers that Tyler had developed. Jay appears to have been crushed by a massive column while fighting a monster. The other three manage to escape.

Later, the three are near what looks like a sidewalk cafe/bistro in a bustling town.  Top hops in a cab and leaves. Tyler and Kate have a brief conversation in which Tyler asks Kate if she thinks that those creatures could survive above ground. Kate mysteriously replies that she thinks that they could and that they have been trying to get out. At this point she reveals that she has been infected/turned/is changing/whatever and then disappears in the crowd. Tyler tries to follow her but is unsuccessful. The end.

After watching this movie I read a few reviews about it and I must say that I agree with at least one of them. The review mentioned that the movie seemed confused as to what it was as in was it supposed to be a horror picture, an action-adventure, or sci-fi? I can see why the person felt this way although it didn't phase me much due to the movie as a whole not being good. The acting was not good. The story wasn't great.

Also after seeing Cole Houser in Pitch Black (which I think is a good movie but more on that later) I was bored with seeing him be the "sort of good guy who turns out to be a bad guy" even though they added the element of "he is in fact a good guy" thing.

Perhaps with other actors the movie would have been better but then again other actors had sense enough to read this movie and decide not to do it.

Gods of Egypt rated PG-13 for violence and some sexuality

When I first heard about this movie I was intrigued and excited. It was nice to hear that a film was being made that was original as opposed to a remake. Also I have read quite a few of the Egyptian myths and at first I wondered which story they would choose to use for the movie. When I saw the preview I was curious to see how they would execute the story that they appeared to be telling.

When I talk with people about this film, many seemed unaware of it. I blame poor marketing and for the life of me I cannot understand any film that isn't an independent film not investing/allocating more money on their marketing. Gods of Egypt is obviously not the first film that has experienced this and it certainly won't be the last.

One guy that I mentioned this movie to was immediately critical because of the extensive use of CGI/special effects for the film as depicted in the trailer. He implied that as the movie used CGI so much it probably wasn't a good enough story to stand on its own without it. I agree that there are films that have used CGI that either didn't need it or they excessively used it so that it took away from the story. That is not the case with this film.

To anyone who shares my coworker's sentiments and thinks that this movie is just CGI and no story, I say that this film is a movie that needs CGI to tell the story as it is a story about gods. There is no way to adequately display the supernatural aspects of this story revolving around the gods without CGI. Gods are supposed to be awe inspiring. The story, the acting, etc is great but to fully convey the story without CGI would end up looking cheesy/ridiculous. The use of CGI was not excessive either.

I do agree that it is strange and unfortunate that no Egyptians were cast in any of the principal roles. That being said at least the director and producers were able to give some talented Australian actors and actresses a great movie to continue their respective careers in. That's a small consolation I know. Also of course they cast locally since that's logical. All in all the actors and actresses that were chosen for this film were all great.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau was an excellent choice for Horus. Many of course know him from Game of Thrones in which he is also excellent. He's very good at playing a conflicted hero type who falls from grace but ultimately finds redemption in doing the right thing.

The plot of this film basically tells of Horus fighting Set to regain his throne and save Egypt from Set's madness. At what was supposed to be Horus's coronation Set battles and defeats Horus in a devastating defeat that most people would find nearly impossible to overcome physically and otherwise. At the coronation "our hero" Bek witnesses these events with his lady Zaya. In the time that follows Set taking over the throne Bek finds himself separated from Zaya as she is sold to the chief builder/engineer/architect played wonderfully by Rufus Sewell (He seems to enjoy portraying a cruel jerk and this works since he is great at it but anyway). Bek is forced into manual labor. Bek still manages to steal away to visit Zaya. Zaya inspires Bek to try to steal Horus's eyes from Set's vault as she believes that Horus is the only one who can save the people from Set. After Bek manages to steal one eye he tries to flee with Zaya but it doesn't go as planned. When Bek finds Horus, he demands Horus's assistance regarding Zaya in exchange for returning Horus's eye and helping to retrieve Horus's other eye. And so the journey begins.

There is much to enjoy about this picture. I confess I was pleasantly surprised. If you're looking for the movie that sticks close to the Egyptian myths you may be disappointed. I was slightly confused by one of the liberties taken with the myths but overall the movie did a great job sticking close to the myths but also adding its own spin. The changes that were made didn't feel disrespectful and it flowed very smoothly.

I do love that this film is a Hero's Journey but it's a God's Journey as well. It's not so uncommon I suppose but in my experience I have found that at best it is a Hero who becomes a God not a Hero traveling with a God while both are on their journey. The CGI works to seamlessly tell the story without being excessive and without taking away from the story.

I was very pleased to see Geoffrey Rush cast as Ra. He gave a great performance as the Sun God. He was exactly what I imagined Ra would be like, a proud father but also a fierce protector and warrior.

I also did enjoy the portrayal of Hathor Goddess of Love performed by Elodie Yung. I particularly enjoyed the reference to Hathor's "other side" although that might be the only portion of the movie that would actually require reading the Egyptian myths to find out more details.
Elodie Yung herself was wonderful as the Hathor who starts out as just another goddess only a little more since she is the goddess of love and who shows growth throughout the story. I did feel sorry for Elodie Yung in one sequence where she had to walk through water in a very lovely but "hardly a dress" dress.  I have heard it said in multiple interviews from multiple actors and actresses that filming in water is rarely comfortable and I can imagine it was rather uncomfortable for her but still more power to her for making it happen.

Another thing that I loved about this story was the way the story played out. Our heroes at various times found themselves strong then defeated which isn't so unusual. Yet as the story progressed I found myself wondering how is this going to work out? Is it going to be a neat tidy ending? Or is it going to be more realistic? How are we even going to get to the ending with the way things are going?

Obviously I'm not going to say more about the ending. I hope I didn't spoil it too much for anyone. I hope that more people will give this a shot. The violence depicted in this picture isn't excessive but it would be obviously up to the parental units if it would be appropriate for smaller children. The violence in the Jurassic Park films is worse I think than in this picture if that helps.

Bed of Roses rated PG for mild language and "thematic events" (not sure what that means exactly but there you are)

I remember hearing about this movie when it first came out. I was around 12 when that happened. I wanted to see the movie initially because of the combination of the title (it sounded very romantic to me) and the song Independent Love Song by Scarlet featured both in the movie and in the trailer.

For some strange reason I wasn't fully aware that Christian Slater was in the picture until I saw the movie. At the time I associated Christian Slater with the film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and as a result thought of him as Will Scarlett. I didn't like Will Scarlett in the Robin Hood movie so I didn't like Christian Slater at first. This movie made me like him (although I'm sure that the time my preteen self would have said that I loved him. Ah the drama of preteen and teenage years but I digress).

In this film, Mary Stuart Masterson plays a successful career woman named Lisa Walker who has recently been promoted to vice president at her place of employment. In the opening sequence of the movie Lisa gets news that someone has passed away while she is  on a business trip. Ever the professional she maintains her composure and carries on with her work. Once home she goes to feed her fish who happens to have died also while she was away and this single moment opens the flood gates for her. The next day while she is at work, she receives a mysterious and beautiful bouquet of flowers.

She is evidently a person who chooses to question and work at mystery rather than accept that someone has given her a lovely gift for no apparent reason. I can't say I entirely blame her for being suspicious but I confess I am slightly bothered that she doesn't seem to even try to appreciate the gift. Eventurally she finds out that the mysterious flowers come from the mysterious floral shop delivery man Lewis played by Christian Slater. With Lewis she slowly blossoms (pardon the pun) from demanding order and reason behind everything and being suspicious to just allowing herself to feel and experience things at face value.

Things get complicated when she is faced with revealing more of her painful past to Lewis and initially avoids it. Lewis reveals to her early on that he has experienced significant heartbreak in his past. Lisa's past as it turns out is extremely painful and her wounds are much deeper than she probably realized until she was faced with a potential "happy ending" of sorts with Lewis. The question is can she overcome her painful past and allow herself to love and be loved by Lewis?

I personally don't love dramatic pictures when you come across characters where everything that can go wrong goes wrong or they are so damaged that it seems impossible that they can ever be even slightly healed. As I said in my introduction to my blog, life has enough pain and trouble without adding to it with unusually strong drama in films.

This movie does an excellent job of presenting a believable dramatic story that while heavy isn't cumbersome and isn't annoying. Everything that the characters do seems logical and not simply a plot device. Obviously I can't imagine going through what Lisa goes through and hopefully most people can't.

On the other hand Lewis's heartbreak seems more relatable. What might not be as relatable in Lewis's case is how he reacts to his heartbreak. Lisa becomes understandably "frozen" by her past and shuts down as a result. Lewis chooses to "overcome" his heartbreak as much as he can while still retaining the positive aspects related to his situation.  Both of their respective reactions are understandable.

When I first watched this picture I didn't understand anything about that. I couldn't get why Lisa acted the way she did throughout the picture. I particularly didn't like the ending.

Thankfully, as an adult watching this picture, I have since gained understanding and appreciation. The actions of Lisa make sense even if I can't relate. The actions of Lewis also make sense. I appreciate that I haven't experienced the things that these characters have experienced. Things could have been worse but they are still pretty heavy.

Two things that I have retained from first watching this picture as a preteen to watching this picture as an adult are a continued love of flowers particularly of the beautiful Sterling roses (according to the movie the only naturally thornless roses) and adoration of Christian Slater as Lewis. He is so wonderfully believable and warm and caring. He's flawed in his own ways but his determined spirit makes him perfect especially for Lisa.  We could all hope that we have at least one respective "Lewis" in our lives who doesn't give up on us no matter what whether it is a friend, significant other, or family member.

Persuasion from "Screen Two" rated PG for mild language

I was fortunate to hear about this wonderful movie from a coworker who was so kind as to lend it to me. I definitely plan on owning this film sooner than later.

I vaguely recalled hearing about the book that this movie is based on in another movie (The Lake House). I further learned more about the novel after learning about Jane Austen herself and her works. I confess that I have trouble reading Jane Austen due to the language. I can read Shakespeare but I cannot understand much of what Jane Austen is talking about without rereading and/or having cliff notes. 

The basic plot of this excellent picture involves two former lovers Anne and Wentworth. For anyone who isn't aware of the novel it is worth mentioning that the novel Persuasion involves Jane Austen's "oldest" heroine. Anne is around 28 years old both in the novel and picture.

The audience learns through tidbits of conversation throughout the movie that Anne and Wentworth first met and fell in love when Anne was 19. At the time Wentworth was an "unsuitable" match due to Anne coming from a somewhat wealthy family and Wentworth being a lowly curate. As a result of family pressure, Anne breaks off the match and Wentworth leaves the area for parts unknown.

Fast forward eight and a half years and things have changed to say the least. Anne's family has fallen into debt and as a result they have to let their country house, downsize, and move to the more affordable but still socially acceptable Bath.

The audience quickly learns that Anne is not liked by her family probably because she is different from them in good ways. She is well read, well-spoken, respectful of course but still holds her own.

When the family relocates to Bath Anne's other sister who is a spinster like Anne decides to take a Mrs. Clay as her maid rather than Anne herself. She makes it a point throughout the film to constantly remind Anne by talking to Mrs. Clay in front of Anne that she doesn't like her sister  Anne at all and that the least amount of time that she can spend with Anne is almost too much.

As it turns out when the family decides to relocate, they happen to let the house to an Admiral Croft and his wife. Mrs. Croft is Wentworth's sister of course. (Incidentally I say of course because if anyone is familiar with Jane Austen at all it should be remembered that new characters like Mrs. Croft who happen to be related to the protagonist's love show up at the beginning. Typical of Austen but still enjoyable. But I digress.)

She is either unaware of the near match between Wentworth and Anne or if she is aware she doesn't allude to it at all in the picture. Mrs. Croft and Admiral Croft turn out to be a very kind older couple who quickly warm up to Anne. Meanwhile Anne is sent to visit her married sister Mary as Mary is apparently ill and among her in-laws the Musgroves. For reasons that aren't expressed but still made clear to the audience both of Anne's sisters dislike the Musgroves.

The Musgroves are also a kind, warm family towards Anne. It seems that Anne is favored because the Musgroves recognize her as the good person that she is and recognize that Mary is basically a brat. While visiting with the Musgroves the Crofts come to visit and subsequently Wentworth also comes to visit.

Wentworth has by now become a captain in the navy. At first he is extremely cold and distant to Anne leaving both Anne and the audience to conjecture that he must hate her for breaking his heart. To add to the frustration and pain of Anne he seems to be interested in marrying either of the Musgrove daughters who happen to be younger than Anne.

So it goes that the audience follows Anne around as life happens and she helplessly watches Wentworth from a distance. Anne is for the most part accepting that as a result of her breaking Wentworth's heart she is bound to be spinster and she intends to be the dutiful daughter, faithful friend, and dependable person that she is. Through it all she loves Wentworth.  As a result when other potential options crop up regarding marriage she doesn't consider them. Also it understandably never occurs to her that Wentworth could possibly still love her.

By the way I must say that Ciaran Hinds was exceptional as Wentworth in this picture. Like many others I'm sure, I am most familiar with Ciaran Hinds as a villain. He's very good at being a villain and he seems to enjoy it. For the more "modern" audience Ciaran Hinds has been most recently viewed on Game of Thrones as the king beyond the wall Mance Rayder. But I digress.

He was wonderfully dashing and handsome as Wentworth. He beautifully played the captain that was completely believable, not a "perfect" man at all, very human, very real, just excellent. I never thought that I could view him as the handsome hero but he was that and more. The way he was able to convey so much with looks and minimal dialogue at times was marvelous.

Anyone who is familiar with Jane Austen knows how this story plays out but still it is great fun even if it is predictable. I don't agree that it is a "Fairy tale for adults" as the cover intones. It seems very relevant now even though the fashions have changed, society's rules have changed, etc. That of course is the "magic" of Jane Austen and the secret to the continued enjoyment of her novels and the subsequent films made of them.

!

Love Actually Rated R for language, sexuality, and nudity

I remember that when I first saw the preview for this picture, I knew immediately that I would love it. The trailer wasn't extremely descriptive regarding the film but as it turns out it didn't have to be. At the time my movie snob friend was very excited to see it and so invited me along with her to go watch it. She was excited to see the actors involved in the picture. Hopeless romantic that I was (and still am) I was interested in the film itself. The stellar cast was a delightful added bonus.

The opening of the film is wonderful, simple, and powerful. Hugh Grant talks about how when he gets gloomy he thinks of the arrivals gate at Heathrow. He reminds the audience that despite many people's assurance/attitude that the world is not a good place, if one goes looking, one will find that "Love Actually is all around" in many forms that we take for granted (I certainly wasn't quite expecting all of the forms presented in the film.)

This movie is technically a Christmas movie as it takes place right around Christmas. The cast is a beloved array of various British actors including but not limited to Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Alan Rickman (R.I.P.) , Liam Neeson, Hugh Grant, Bill Nighy, Rowan Atkinson, Martin Freeman as well as two excellent American actors Laura Linney and Billy Bob Thornton.

For me this movie was my first time seeing Andrew Lincoln. This was also my first time seeing Thomas Brodie-Sangster (love this kid in this movie!)  Almost all of the characters in this picture are lovable to some extent.

As the title and opening sequence explains this movie is about love. When I hear about love, I almost immediately think of romantic love. While this movie includes a goodly amount of romantic love it talks about other love as well i.e. love between siblings, love between friends, unrequited love, established love, new love, casual love, true love, and even touches on forbidden "love".

After I watched the movie, I happened to watch some tv interview with the movie's producers/director (honestly I don't remember who it was specifically) and the speaker stated that the central "hub" character of the movie is actually Emma Thompson. She is most directly connected to almost all of the more major characters in the movie.
On a side note, I am convinced that Rowan Atkinson portrays an angel in this picture. You decide after you watch the movie.

On another side note, Andrew Lincoln's Mark sets the romantic bar so high that he is probably second only to Westley from Princess Bride in my humble opinion.

On a third and final side note, Rodrigo Santoro totally won my heart as the mysterious, sweet, handsome Karl. I identify him so strongly with this character that when I have seen him since this picture I always think of him as Karl.

I won't go into too much detail of who loves who and so on because I don't want to. I am convinced that this movie has something for everyone although given its R rating this isn't a movie for children to see unless you have seen it enough to anticipate and possibly censor the movie. The picture continuously bounces between the various scenarios and characters in the movie although it doesn't feel rushed or abrupt. You spend just enough time with the characters to care but not to forget about the other stories involved.

The filmmakers did such an excellent job of seamlessly tying everything together with such ease that others thought that they could replicate the magic by simply featuring an all star cast and hoping for the best. Unfortunately for those two other films, it wasn't and isn't as simple as that and they both flopped.

To this day the filmmakers of Love Actually seem very appreciative of the fact that they made this excellent film happen and have implied that they probably wouldn't be able to replicate the process hence no sequel.

But this movie doesn't actually need a sequel. One of the films "secret" strengths is that it is actually realistic. I love a good "happy ending" as much as the next person but this picture reflects that real life doesn't always include "happy endings" or at least not immediate "happy endings". The movie ends as real life would happen (with the exception perhaps of the Prime Minister but that's ok because he's excellent fun).

For me personally I take a most optimistic view of what happens to the characters in this picture. It ends in such a way that you can make up your mind.

Hope you enjoy the movie. Try watching it at least once. I'm certain you won't regret it for one reason or another. It is one of the best that I have ever seen. Sorry for spoilers.

Machine Gun Preacher rated R for violence, a scene of sensuality, drug use, graphic/disturbing images, language

I remember first seeing the cover of the movie in stores and being intrigued. In my opinion, Gerard Butler is a very good actor and he seems to be in good/great movies more often than not. Then I read a brief article in Entertainment Weekly about how Machine Gun Preacher got by a lot of people. My curiosity was further excited by this article as it seemed unusual at best. The movie wasn't a particularly "flashy" movie and while Gerard Butler is talented, the article seemed to be possibly more genuine because of its simplicity and understatedness. So, for my birthday, a friend purchased the movie. I confess that I didn't immediately watch it although I have no idea why. Part of it may have been that the cover explained that it is based on a true story and I was worried that I might feel too sad after watching the film. In any case, I sat down one day, determined to watch the movie and a little scared of what I might see

.
As it turns out, my trepidations regarding the material were not unfounded. This movie is rated R for a very good reason but that simply means that it probably isn't a movie for children to watch given the graphic scenes in it. There is violence specifically against children and to say that it is hard to watch is an understatement. That being said, if you are at all curious about watching the film, please try to watch it.
In my humble opinion this movie is one of the best films that I have seen so far (it's actually on my list of top films). I don't regret watching the movie at all and in fact I recommend it to all of my friends (with a warning regarding watching around children).

The movie has many wonderful, powerful messages that really resonate. How strongly would you stand up for your beliefs and actions when you are faced with such pain, suffering, and odds that it seems one person can't possibly do anything? What if you were faced with a situation where you wanted to help do something, anything but everyone is telling you by yourself can't help? What if they further asked why do you care? What if the few people who did believe in you started to question you and not be as supportive or completely stop being supportive? What if you could only save a few when thousands need your help? What if, no matter how hard you tried, you still "failed" or at least faced setbacks, losses, devastation, or finding yourself doing actions that you would never have imagined doing? Would you give up or would you keep trying no matter what the cost?

My favorite messages that I got from this movie are actually contained in those questions. One of my favorite messages was that no matter who you are, no matter what you have done, and no matter where you come from, you are not beyond redemption or hope. Whether you choose to find hope and/or redemption in the way that Sam Childers did or doesn't is of no consequence as long as there is no harm to yourself or to others. (This movie is happily free of preachiness too [funny I know since the title contains the word preacher].)

Another favorite message, everyone matters.

An additional favorite message, every little action no matter how seemingly insignificant matters and is important.
The movie opens with disturbing scenes of violence with children in Sudan. The movie then rewinds a few years to focus on our protagonist Sam Childers. The movie does an excellent job of depicting him (at least initially) as a terrible scumbag low-life drug addicted degenerate who is presumably a bad husband and not a particularly good father. In the movie, one night Sam makes a truly terrible "mistake" (another understatement) and soon seeks redemption. In Sam's case, redemption is rediscovering Christianity. He gets baptized and cleans up his life. Sam apparently has construction experience and uses that experience when he hears about a missionary trip to Africa. While in Africa he hears vague information regarding a civil war in Sudan. He fatefully decides to visit the area and thus begins probably the most major turning point in his life. In a heartbreaking scene (and there are many in this movie so if you're like me have your tissues ready) on his first night in Sudan he observes children coming from all around the countryside of the place that he is staying at. When he asks his guide what's happening the guide explains that the children are sent away from their homes at night to sleep with their parents' hopes that they will be safer than if they stay in their villages. Sam is immediately moved to invite the children to sleep inside the building that he is staying in. Sam's guide Deng states that Sam can't help all of the children as there are too many. Sam promptly responds that he can at least help some of the children.
Throughout the movie Sam will continuously face resistance in the form similar thought patterns, statements, actions, and/or at least sentiments that basically he shouldn't try to help any of the children because there are too many so it's no use. Almost every time that he encounters these things, he responds by stating that he can do something for some of the children so therefore he will try to help as many of the children as he possibly can. The movie does an excellent job of portraying as much as it can just how difficult and seemingly impossible were the odds against Sam and how hard it was for him to stick to his mission.
After his first visit to Sudan, Sam is moved to try to do something for the children of Sudan and so begins his life's work of trying to save as many children as he can. Through it all he starts a church for people that he can relate to more, people "more like him". He also tries to be a good friend, as well as a better husband and father. Along the way we see Sam torn between doing what's easy and doing what's right. He faces some unbelievable challenges.
The movie doesn't clearly say so but I feel that certain minor characters that Sam encounters in the movie are more representative of attitudes that Sam experienced rather than actual people that he encountered which only adds dimension to the story as a whole. The story is amazing and so inspiring. The acting is superb. The cast is excellent. Great directing. Wonderful writing all around. The best part of the movie is knowing that Sam Childers has been and is still trying to save as many children as he can.

Usually I don't agree with critics but in this case I feel that this movie should have won some kind of awards (besides just technical ones of course). It seems that perhaps due to its timing and its lack of marketing that it unfortunately did go unnoticed by many people. I know of very few people who have seen the movie and those very few have only seen it because I personally showed it to them.

I thought it was very admirable that Gerard Butler himself was one of the executive producers of this film. On a side note regarding Gerard Butler, it seems to me that he appears to do movies that are not "typical" stories although they may have some "typical" elements to them. While he is well known for his great action films (300 anyone?) his dramas are equally great if a little underrated. Like quite a few actors, he gives the impression that he only does dramas that particularly draw him in (basically quality over quantity) rather than to simply garner profit or acclaim.

I think that's great that he not only wanted to be a part of this movie but that he felt moved to personally make sure that this story was told. Obviously he's not the only actor to do that and he's not the first actor to do this but still. Very admirable of him.

If you decide to watch it (and I sincerely hope that you do), I have a recommendation. I have noticed among my friends (they all love movies too of course) that there is a common habit of commenting, possibly chatting, etc during films. My recommendation for this film is that you should try your best to truly watch the film. Try to focus on the film as much as you can and really take in the film and its messages and try to understand the film.

In my personal experience, everyone that I have shown the film to no matter how chatty they normally are become quiet and introspective. One couple was actually moved to make a donation although I don't think that that was necessarily the intention of the film.

I confess that after watching the movie, among the flood of emotions that I felt, I felt ashamed for a number of reasons. I was particularly bothered by my lack of knowledge regarding Darfur and everything connected with Darfur. I recalled vaguely hearing about Darfur but not paying too much attention to anything that I heard. I certainly didn't feel the urge to investigate further. After all, it wasn't personally affecting me. While I'm not a terrible person for feeling this way, I still felt terrible as the film The Machine Gun Preacher does a great job of enlightening people who for whatever reason(s) weren't aware of what is happening in Darfur and the rest of Sudan.

Shortly after the initial shame, I felt grateful that Sam Childers is out on his mission doing what he can even if it is only to save one child. I was glad that Sam had decided to share his story and I was glad that people listened enough to make this film. I think that the more people that see the film the better. It brings much needed attention to a devastating situation that still goes on today. Obviously, hopefully much much sooner than later the situation can be peacefully ended/resolved in as positive a manner as possible.

After talking with a friend about this film, he said that he was surprised that I liked this movie considering it is a movie that features a lot of sadness.  I was surprised by his statement.  While I agree that this movie has many sad moments overall I would say that this movie as more about triumph and overcoming obstacles even in the face of unbelievable odds.

Hope you enjoyed the blog. Sorry for spoilers. I hope that no one was offended as that wasn't my intention. If you were offended, I apologize.

The Shallows rated PG-13 for violence/content

I was curious to see this film when I saw the first preview.  I enjoy suspenseful films and this one looked promising.  I was not disappointed.  As this film is a recent release and is still in theatres I will stick to basic details but there may be some spoilers.

The movie follows Nancy (played by Blake Lively) as she is surfing at a "secret" beach that her mother visited years earlier when she was pregnant with Nancy.  Along the way to the "secret" beach she meets a middle aged man named Carlos (played by Oscar Jaenada).  He in fact is the one who takes her to the secret beach.  He explains that he lives nearby so he was doing out of kindness to her.  He offers to return later to take her back to her hotel but she refuses.  With some reluctance Carlos drives off in his truck.

 After Nancy goes out to surf, she meets two nice young men.  Together they all have a good time surfing for awhile.  Nancy goes in to rest and we find out more backstory about her.  Nancy goes back out to catch one more wave.  While Nancy is catching one last wave, she is viciously attacked by a great white.  Thus begins the very well done suspenseful tale of survival that is the rest of the film.  I will not tell you how it ends because it would spoil the movie.  If you aren't interested in seeing the picture in the first place, then I don't know what to tell you.

A spoiler that I will say is that the shark is a CGI shark.  If you didn't gather that from the preview and if you didn't come across comments that Blake Lively herself made in an interview in which she specifically stated that the shark is CGI then I apologize for spoiling that for you.

This is a movie that you will have to suspend disbelief and just go with.  If that doesn't work for you then I'm not sure that this film is suitable.  Mind you, there's nothing wrong with being unable to suspend disbelief.  I have encountered that problem myself in other pictures but for me it is important to know sooner than later if I have to suspend disbelief or not.   But I digress.

Blake Lively was excellent as Nancy.  She was believable and sincere.  She also appears to have done quite a lot of the actual surfing/swimming in this picture which I think is cool.  Nancy goes through realistic times of fighting for survival with lulls of despair and fear that made me care about her.  When she was fighting I was cheering her on and when she was afraid I was encouraging her to keep trying.

The film was unexpectedly beautiful.  The cinematography was gorgeous.  I felt like I was there with Nancy as she was surfing and swimming or with one of the other characters when they were running.  The filmmakers did an excellent job of bringing the film to life.  The writing was very good and it all made sense.