Edge of Tomorrow and 22 Jump Street

It seems everyone has an opinion about Tom Cruise.  Yes, he has been married numerous times.  Yes, he may be involved in one of the biggest cults in America.  AND YES, he knows how to do action films;  good, bad or otherwise.  When it comes to his new film "Edge of Tomorrow," Tom Cruise does a good job balancing an unusual story with aplomb.  It would seem, when it comes to action films, there are few stars that are game for them, as audiences "have seen it all" by this point.  From Arnold, to Bruce Willis, we have few names we can trust.  We may not be able to trust Tom Cruise, but at least you know it should be interesting.  He just seems to have "it" when an action film comes along.  The film may be cheesy (MI2), rotten (Oblivion) or down right nasty (Collateral), but Tom Cruise cares about the work he puts into his films.

       "Edge of Tomorrow" revolves around Cruise and his character Cage, as well as a host of other films to make this action film work.  The film revolves around the military day repeating itself via "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray.  I kept hoping Bill Murray would put in a cameo in this film, but it is not to be.  Anyway, the day repeats itself because Cage is killed by an alien being known as an Omega.  An Omega, as we find out, is a strong being that is using our memories and intellect to learn more about our military strategies, and thus, destroy us in a worldwide war for humanity.  Cage goes into combat reluctantly and as a "deserter," but is able to redeem himself, as well as train and become a better human being because the day repeats itself, much as Bill Murray did in "Groundhog Day."

The alien beings that Cage and the world must fight against are interesting, but they bring about a point that must be addressed:  while this film is fun to watch, it  "borrows" from so many movies, it feels like a retread instead of something new.  The aliens look like beings from the "Matrix" films, and the ending scene is so similar to the 3rd "Matrix" film that i'm surprised reports have not sprung up about "copyright infringement."  Also baffling is the planes, cars, SUVs that soldiers are transported in.  They look like they came from "Aliens" and instead of Ripley, we get Emily Blunt.  Emily Blunt has been on the rise in the past few years, coming to fame through various roles, most recently in the film "Loopers," where she plays a distraught mother trying to protect her child from Bruce Willis.  Anyway, Emily Blunt plays Rita, who looks like a tough trained fighter dressed in Final Fantasy gear, with the giant sword and back pack to match.  Rita, it seems, has also been impacted by an Omega, and she is the only person that Cage can trust and relate to.  Cruise and Blunt spend a huge portion of the film training and fighting in order to get farther in combat, hoping to encounter and kill the Omega, thereby keeping the world's military secrets and strategy safe.  How this happens will be left up for you to, of course.  However, the ending is eerily similar to scenes from the first Captain America and Pacific Rim, so beware.
You have to hand it to Tom Cruise.  Even when a film borrows numerous scenes, ideas and even a movie premise, you never get tired of seeing Tom Cruise and his earnestness in the film.  He does a good job, has some fun, laughs and great scenes that remind us, "Hey, Tom Cruise has another action film out."  And that's a good thing.

3 out of 5



                                                               22 Jump Street
             Two years ago, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum teamed up for the surprise hit of the year and summer.  They were cops that got in trouble and found themselves going undercover at a high school, looking to "Infiltrate the dealers, find the suppliers."  They did so with flare, hilarious jokes and a cameo appearance by Johnny Depp.  "21 Jump Street" was a truly fun and stupid film, much like Dumb and Dumber.  Who hasn't seen two opposites join forces and become a truly unstoppable duo?  But, wow, did those two make it work.  They left the world with a lot of new catchphrases and highlights (doves anyone?).  And now, "22 Jump Street" comes along.

            There is a really easy way to describe this film:  if you liked the first film, you will like this one.  In fact, there is no way to not like this film if you liked the first because they are nearly identical, which sounds weird, but actually works.

          "22 Jump Street" seems to know and revel in the fact that sequels are usually worst and more ludicrous than the original film.  So, why not do the same thing, but make fun of it instead?  This seems to be the premise that 22 deals with, and you know what?  It totally works.  Throughout the film, characters and situations cry out for "we know it's the same" and that's okay.  Several media outlets have referred to this as "sequelitis."

        With "sequelitis" in mind, this film revolves around Schmidt and Jenko "going to college" and searching for who the big drug person/dealer is.  As their initial captain points out, "but now, people actually are spending money and expecting results for this job."  The pun upon the movie and dare i say "franchise" is awesome and beautifully executed.  If you know you are getting the same film, why not enjoy it again...just at college.  The usual college cliches are there, from stupid roommates, to drunk frats and hazing.  Insert a football team instead of a drama team from the first film and you have everything you need.  Oh, you liked the bad guys from the first one, then bam, Jenko and Schmidt must get "information" from suppliers that know about this stuff.  Insert cameo by Dave Franco and Rob Riggle.  Ice Cube returns and is just as angry and funny as he was in the first.  Be ready for his daughter and an awkward dinner with Jonah Hill during the "Parent Week" of school.

        Does it actually matter if the "case is solved?"  Not really, so long as Jonah Hill keeps making fun of himself and his non-athletic side, while his buddy Channing Tatum exhibits his muscular body tone and funny attempts to learn and play professional sports:  "He's the Mexican Wolverine."

The film ends brilliantly, as the credits make fun of all the future "installments" of Jump Street.  From a cameo by Seth Rogen as "Priest Street" to Jonah Hill saying, "What contract dispute?" the film just nails the nature of Hollywood wanting to make money, meta-films, and being self aware.  It's refreshing and great to know that as much fun as these actors have being in a silly buddy movie, it is still just a movie, so why not have fun?  Enjoy this one, just like you did with the first one!

4 out of 5

Maleficent Review: Hell hath no fury...

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a phrase we have all heard and been intimated by…okay a phrase men are scared to physically encounter.  However, in the new Disney movie, Maleficent, Angelina Jolie takes this phrase and exhibit her wrath upon all those who try and betray her.

The movie Maleficent is based upon the Disney film “Sleeping Beauty.”  The original story has a sweet 16 year old girl living with 3 fairy godmothers, hoping they can protect her from a spell that has been cast on her.  Only “true love’s kiss” will reverse this spell.  Flash-forward to the current film and we have the exact same premise, with a great twist—the Maleficent perspective and motive.

The film begins with a young girl, Maleficent, living in her own fantasy world, trying out her powers and wings.  She is a sweet girl and commands other creatures to follow and obey her.  For the first 15 minutes, the movie has a distinct Guillermo del Toro feel.  Many of the creatures look like they came out of the film Pan’s Labyrinth or even del Torro’s modest film Hellboy.  The creatures and special effects are a wonder to behold, as is Maleficent.  As beautiful as the world and CGI may be, living in utopia was not to be.  One day, a young boy shows up in young Maleficent’s world, forming a friendship and bond that the film revolves around.

The two friends, Maleficent and Stefan  (Sharlto Copley) grow up, each seemingly caring for the other, until one day, a King decides he wants more land and a bigger kingdom, which involves Maleficent’s land and kingdom.  This puts her dear friend Stefan in a tough spot.  He, along with many other powerful men, is allowed to rule after the King if they deliver the powerful Maleficent to the King.  

Stefan lures Maleficent out by claiming to warn her of the vicious King, but uses the guise of a friendly date to drug and then cut off her wings.  When Angelina Jolie wakes up, realizing she has been betrayed and has lost her wings, her acting is truly horrifying.  It was one of the few scenes where I not only was moved, but would have been concerned had I any small children.  It is great acting, but a bit much for young children.  Somehow, knowing that Jolie went through breast cancer issues in her family made this scene and its “date rape” implications very powerful; Men, in this case, Stefan, using a woman to get what he wants.   Stefan does indeed become the next king.  While Jolie clearly owns the movie, the great, but underrated Sharlto Copley gives another great performance as a nefarious “bad guy.”  If you have seen Elysium, then you know what I mean when I say he can be a brutal villain when he wants to turn up the heat. If he isn’t careful, Copley will soon by typecast whenever a villain is needed.

As Maleficent tries to grow without her wings, and as Stefan begins ruling his new kingdom, a welcome celebration is brought fourth, bringing the two “frenemies” together—the birth of Stefan’s daughter.  Kingdoms are brought together, as are the festivities.  But this also brings the wrath of Jolie, I mean, Maleficent, and it is at this party that Maleficent renders her now famous curse that “nothing can undo….except love’s true kiss.”

From this point, which is around the 30 minute mark, we know where the movie will go:  there will be a cute girl that fails to avoid a curse, but is still saved.  There will be battles and there will be a happy ending because Disney made the film.  However, what makes this film a solid and special one is how these events are molded and seen through new light.  Jolie does a fantastic job in this role, as both villain, but then sympathetic character, one that many will relate to when it comes to a life of regret.  Many of us go through life, knowing that one mistake can come to define us.  We pray for a chance to make things right or to “go back and start over.”  Jolie, as she gets to know the young Aurora, has these same feelings in regards to her curse upon “the little one” and her life.  You can see the changes she wants to make and why she tries to seek forgiveness, which is a great motive and thing for all ages to see.

         

The movie, while PG, has a few violent spots should parents be considering taking the little ones to the theatre.  However, a positive message ends the film, and the 3 fairy godmothers are quite humerous in their various roles as “protectors.” After seeing Jolie do a great job, I wondered why she doesn’t do more films.  She is a household name and has her own marketing circus due to “Brangalina.”  But there is another famous phrase she probably lives by when it comes to films: “Quality, not quantity.”

X-Men: Finally, a good one...

Director Bryan Singer, the man behind X-Men and X2 is back after a three "X-Men" break.  Since his return, the world has seen numerous Wolverine films as well as three additional X-Men films.  With all of these films involving mutants and various world conflicts, many are probably asking why should i go see this one OR what does this one do that makes it stand out?  Well, it's Memorial Day weekend and with the extra time on hand, it would be a solid investment when it comes to the movies.  For what it's worth, i give the movie a rating of 3.5/5.
At the end of X-Men First Class, we saw a young Professor X crippled due to a bullet that ricocheted off of Magneto and into his spine, paralyzing him.  This film, set in the present day, involves many of those same mutants and friends squaring off against an entity known as Sentinals.  If you are a nerd like me, you remember the comic books and think, "The big red/purple guys that are stupid, slow and can be killed by Wolverine."  Well, as it turns out, no.  These are machines that have been implanted with programs about mutants, as well as Mystique's DNA, allowing them to morph into or avoid the powers of other mutants in order to avoid being killed.  Bottom line:  they are Terminators with mutant powers. In order to avoid total destruction as a race, mutants must rise together, go back in time and stop the production of Sentinals from ever taking place.  They are able to do this by sending Wolverine back in time (because he can constantly heal) and fight/discuss/be a BA with mutants in the 1970's. Wolverine has one task, get Mystique to avoid killing a man named Trask.  Trask is played by our favorite Game of Thrones character, Peter Dinklage.  Trask doesn't hate mutants like many of his peers, but he does want to make a lot of money destroying them with weapons he creates.  Basically, he is Tony Stark without a conscience for good.
Anyway, Wolverine makes his way through the 70's meeting old and new mutants, while also avoiding his temper.  Hugh Jackman knows his roll in these movies and he does a good job helping keep the plot moving forward.  Among the characters that he meets along his journey is Quicksilver.  Quicksilver is a mutant that can move super fast.  In this movie, he is the only character that has fun with his role.  He helps Wolverine and others save Magneto from prison.  As a nerd, i was disappointed that Magneto was not told that this was his son, but i digress...
While the movie has good action scenes, fun characters and the right director back at the helm, I have the same problem with this movie as I had with Godzilla:  too many "stolen" parts from other movies.  I'm not saying that every movie must be original and knock our minds out of the world like Inception.  However, when most of the movie is giving credit to previous films, even films done by the same franchise, it takes away from what it was once trying to add to the current film.  Any time you deal with TIME TRAVEL, you must go up against any Terminator film, which this one does.  Even the "End of the World" scenarios seem like they came from T2.  Wolverine encounters so many "flashbacks" while he is in time travel mode that it seemed like Mr. Singer had a chance to throw insults at the other X-Men films that he had nothing to do with, as well as try to close gaps between films.  This all may be fine, it just seems a bit forced.
With all that said, the movie has a good pace, is solid and has a great cast from all the films, so there is that.  The film does bode well for the future of the franchise, which couldn't always be said.  The film simply ends, leaving the next director a lot of leeway in where they take the next film.  That may be good, but with the X-Men franchise, while the films are solid, the company or studio doesn't seem how to plot the course or have a plan with where to take these films in the future, unlike The Avengers and their characters.  They have a specific plan with where they go and in turn, they are able to give their films a bit more identity.

The Big Guy: Godzilla Review!

        As David Ershon famously said in The Other Guys, "Americans live for excess.  American sports contracts, Wendy's Baconnator, with extra bacon."  When it comes to movies with BIG heroes or CGI battle sequences, most of the time, movie goers love watching things go BOOM.  On the eve of another Transformers movie, and just months after the nerd favorite Pacific Rim, here comes the grand-poba of them all:  Godzilla.
        Godzilla is set in our present day world, and involves Walter White, i mean, Bryan Cranston, who plays another scientist.  He works in Japan at a nuclear power plant when something goes terribly wrong and his wife is killed in a radiation leak.  This causes Mr. Cranston to plunge into a 15 year search for the truth about "that terrible day."  Obviously, you've seen the trailers and know that it is not an earthquake, but something much worst that caused a nuclear power plant to collapse and expose millions.  Anyway, this leads to other scientist, the navy and Mr. Cranston's son, Ford, to become involved in the plot.  But, let's get to the nitty-gritty:  Does the movie deliver the goods when it comes to the big fella?
       For what it's worth, i give the movie 3/5 stars.  It is an average popcorn, summer going, blockbuster.  Godzilla does look amazing, as do the bad monsters he's up against.  These monsters apparently need nuclear energy/radiation from our nukes to survive, and Godzilla is nature's way of restoring the balance for humanity's inability to stop destroying the earth or creating weird animals because of our nuclear tests back in the 40s.  Anyway, Godzilla looks great, as do the other monsters, which is to be expected with a budget of over $160 million and a great CGI team.  No, the problem is not Godzilla.  The problem comes with the "other details" of the film.
       The director, Gareth Edwards should be applauded for not jumping right into action and destruction scenes, Transformers style.  In fact, he does a good job building up to the BIG FELLA entering with his ferrous scream.  Mr. Edwards even tries to build some chemistry with the actors, trying to get some empathy for the characters involved and build a palpable sense of urgency for Godzilla's entrance.  No, where the film fails is "the other stuff."
       The movie, frankly, jumps around too much.  There are scenes that begin in 1999, then present day, then present day San Francisco, then Oakland, the Hawaii.  There seems to be so many small intercut scenes from one area to the next that the film quite literally doesn't gain too much traction.  Then, when it does get rolling, Mr. Edwards falls into the same trap that every big budget monster film seems to go for:  fighting monsters in the dark.  From King Kong by Peter Jackson, to the recent Pacific Rim, monsters seem to like fighting in the dark, rendering the CGI or "Bigness" of the film moot because we CAN'T see anything very well.  Yes, there are parts where we see Godzilla quite well, but for the most part, everything seems to happen at night, or we literally get small snap shots of the beasts (a TV monitor in a casino, hospital, or elevator doors closing as we see monsters engaged in battle, etc.).  It is truly a bit of a downer, because again, Mr. Edwards tried to at least get a story going, characters interacting and diagnosing what is truly at stake.  Too many times in monster movies, the directors don't even try to engage in character development (Here's to you Alien remakes, and the truly awful Transformer films), making the CGI the only "story," which ultimately, doesn't engage anyone or leave an impact because frankly, we've seen it all by now.
         Now, with all that said, Mr. Edwards does have some fun with his film.  He must give dozens of "props" to directors or films he loves, specifically Jurassic Park.  The big foot prints, the looking through a fogged car, the big monster scream at the lonely human, etc.  He clearly owes Spielberg a lot, which is great, but again, it takes a bit away from his vision of Godzilla.  It's hard to say if Pacific Rim impacted the direction of this film, but i can only wonder, as there seemed to be a bit of "kudos" to that film as well.  Whatever the case, the film had a huge opening weekend, does a decent job as a "summer action flick" and should not leave you bummed you went to see the big fella.  My only question, when it comes to these things (sense i am a nerd) is: Can Godzilla be killed?  Does he get a remake with Superman, and what happens if Marvel gets involved?  My head is spinning...

The Tragedy of Breaking Bad--It had to end..but what an ending...

With the final season of Breaking Bad coming out this Tuesday, I wanted to not only review it, but also give me humble take on the show. First off, the show does in fact leave your mind blown. It truly is one of a kind. From the first episode to the last, all 62 episodes are clearly designed to lead to the next, culminating in the series finale that leaves us wondering how a nice, brilliant family man could become so deadly. The series arch of episodes is so brilliant that this may truly be the best show that has ever hit the TV market. But that debate is for another blog. What I wish to do is review the show as a tragedy. For many years, literary buffs have called “Death of a Salesman” the last American tragedy. This can no longer be true. Walter White played by Bryan Cranston is clearly a tragic figure we not only pity, but also relate to quite well. Most American's want to work at a job they love, have a great family and make enough money to get by should something come up. When the show begins, Walter White has little control over any of those things, the only exception being the upcoming birth of his daughter. Once Walter decides he needs 750k to help his family survive once he dies, he begins his descent into tragedy. He will do whatever it takes to not only stay alive, but also help his family—or so he claims. As the episodes pile up, as well as the body count, we see a man that is obsessed with controlling his product, using every excuse to not only stay alive, but also thrive in his environment. Walter not only has a body that literally adapts to having cancer, but he adapts his intellect and product and becomes a drug kingpin. He does not simply “break bad” one day. No, he slowly descends into utter darkness, day after day, choice after choice. What sets this story and show apart from any other is the silence and how it furthers the tragedy of Walter White. For most shows, there is some kind of “soundtrack” for the introduction or theme music. This is not the case with Breaking Bad. Yes, there is an elemental table shown in each episode, but it lasts only 5 seconds before the episode continues. In its stead are extreme moments of silence. In fact, almost all of the season finales end with moments of brilliant and tragic silence. When Jesse shoots Gayle, the gunshot is heard, but tragic silence after. The same can be said as Mike falls to the ground dead, with the quiet flow of the river in the background. When Jesse and Walt shake hands, knowing they have survived the horror of Gus, Walt falsely thinking, “I won.” The biggest “jaw dropper” would have to be Hank discovering “W.W.” is in fact Walter White while emptying his bowels. The sheer denial on his face becomes haunting because of the silence Vince Gilligan wants. These moments of silence are everywhere and throughout all the episodes, a deliberate attempt by a director at the height of his craft: we are silently watching a man tragically become not just a drug kingpin, but also a killer that delights in “Breaking Bad.” We cannot stop his descent, we can only silently watch in horror as a brilliant chemistry teacher withers away, not just neglecting and endangering his family, but his very soul. What truly brings this to a crescendo is when Vince Gilligan does bring in music, most notably, as the show literally ends. Walt has been shot and falls to the ground dead, with “Baby Blues” playing softly as the series comes to a halt. The music means something when Walt dies. Vince Gilligan wants us to know and hear the music, whereas before, we were to be haunted by the silence and destruction of a soul; it's almost as if the death of Walter White is the beginning of happiness, with music the breath of new beginning and spring coming around the corner. We don't need to be haunted by the silence of a decaying soul; we are now free of the “blues” that made the show. Amazing stuff! And that's the point: when there is “noise” or violence, it stands out that much more! From Jesse's killing of Gale to the bomb that kills Gus. The noise becomes so much more powerful because of the silence that preceded it, making the final frame—Walt smiling—that much more powerful. He quite literally “did gain the whole, but lost his soul.” People will continue to argue that Breaking Bad is in fact the greatest TV show to ever be aired. That is a tough call; as the show ultimately focuses on only one person, while other shows, most notably The Wire, focus on whole cities or tragic problems that are not being handled. What most can agree on is this: enjoy the artistic brilliance—on every front—of Breaking Bad.

Iron Man 3 and Star Trek

With only 3 weeks left in the college term, numerous students asked when i would get my own "film course" since i quote or reference or show numerous movies to make points from anything ranging from what writing is really about, to what grammar reminds all of us of: The matrix itself. Anyway, i realized it has been some time since i have done some movie reviews...well, here goes the two biggest films of the year... all while they are still "new" to most movie-goers. I begin with Iron Man 3 and Downey Jr. returning as Tony Stark as Iron Man. First, i'm giving this film 6/10 because frankly, while the themes are better, as is the "bad guy" (Guy Pearce), it is lacking in several major areas. To begin, Tony Stark is still doing well and loves his job as Iron Man, except, not really. He loves Pepper Potts too much that he now struggles with anxiety and with his ability to keep her safe. While Tony continues to work on projects and what not, he just seems to have lost his confidence. Since most know i am fond of quoting other movies, if this were Austin Powers, Tony Stark has clearly lost his "mojo, baby." Before i reveal or say more, SPOILER ALERT... Sadly, this movie just lacks it when it comes to story, as the whole movie, and trailers leading up to the film don't give us the legitimate bad guy comic lovers adore. Ben Kingsley as the "Man-darin" (not the orange), is not the villain. He is merely a pet stooge from Guy Pearce and his experiments. While this idea of a fake bad guy is good in theory, it just doesn't flow or move very well in this movie. It isn't that there is too much to say, but how the story tries to say it that just leaves the film lacking. This leads to the two biggest issues with the film: the chemistry of the stars to the story. What made Downey Jr. so amazing and exciting to watch in IM1-2 and Avengers was his charisma and ability to basically be brillant but a total self absorbed fun loving jerk. His romance with Pepper was amazing and fun to watch. You totally bought into this weird couple and even, that the actors generally liked the movie they were in. Same goes for Stark and his friendship with Col. Rhodes, aka War Machine, or make that American Patriot. Anyway, this movie loses all of its chemistry with these actors towards each other and the parts they play. I mean, Col. Rhodes is a side project in this film and Potts just doesn't click with Stark at all. Some will argue, "That's because the threat was bigger or more urgent." I just don't see that, as Stark always had fun in the first two films and especially in Avengers. I get that there is a "mid life crisis" vibe in this film, but it still doesn't fit with the overall story or chemistry. There should be more silent parts with just the camera and Stark. But instead, there is the typical action with some new twists and a lot more iron man suits. It's interesting that in all of the Avengers, Stark doesn't lose one suit despite fighting aliens, yet he loses at least 6 suites fighting Guy Pearce. I digress... Hey, the film is still solid, has some good scenes and ultimately is not an insult to the comic, as Daredevil or Green Lantern was. Enjoy it in good health. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS The movie that you need to see is now here. This is a film that Abrams directs with confidence and a deft hand at building upon the chemistry that made the remake in 2009 so much fun. I must admit that i've never been a huge Trekkie for the simple fact that i agree with Ebert: it's a genre or show that takes place in a big "square type box where people constantly quote cliches." I'm sorry, but this occurs in the newest Trek, but how could these situations not lead to cliches when the warp drive is constantly breaking down and "shields are down to 6%." These types of scenarios are typical of Trek films and they shall continue. But, to the actual film: It is quite good. Go for the simple fact that you get to see a rising film star: Benedict Cumberbatch. This guy can act. Most know him from the great TV show Sherlock Holmes. I'm grateful my sister got me hooked on this show, as this guy can act and the stories of the TV show are great. But, when it comes to being a villain in Star Trek, Cumberbatch is head and shoulders above many. I'll keep it a surprise as to who this bad guy is, but his performance is amazing. The chemistry he shares with Kirk and the scenes they grow through are quite good and give audiences a nice amount of suspense. I still have chills from Cumberbatch saying, "You think you are safe...you are not." Combine this intensity with lighter, funny moments from Scotty and the solid performance from Mr. Spock (Zac Quinto) and you end up with a film that surpasses Iron Man in most areas. Go boldly to the theatres to see this great film. Here's to hoping Abrams continues his ascent as a film director, as he is on quite a roll. Django Unchained And now to DVD and one of my favorite films of all time: Django Unchained. My class is sick of hearing it, or watching clips from it, but it is simply amazing. Here is a film that comes from the great/weird/bizarre mind of Tarantino. In this film, Foxx is a slave that is set free by a bounty hunter. The bounty hunter is played by the great Germen actor Christoph Waltz, who played in Inglorious Bastards by Tarantino. Waltz needs to find the Brittle brothers to collect a huge bounty and Foxx knows where they are. After finding and killing these men, Waltz teaches Foxx how to shoot and be a bounty hunter. These men then team up to go after Django's wife, who just happens to be "the property of Calvin Candy" a devilish demon played with all the gusto one can ever mustard Leonardo Dicaprio...yes, the same Dicaprio that gave us Titanic. Well, since he worked out the kinks in Titanic and the Beach, Leonardo has yet to do a bad film or performance, and he again nails it in full force as the negro slave owner Candy. From Blood Diamond, Body of Lies, Great Gatsby, to Django. This man is on fire. And let's not forget the fully original Inception. While this film is "fun" as only Tarantino can give it, it is graphic and full of language, as any film on the south, slaves and owning people would be. However, while many find the film to be having fun with all this gratituoius scenes, i found it somewhat accurate. Accurate in the sense that we know blacks were treated horribly and abused by all sorts. Whites would rather kill them then give them respect or authority. This film portrays that, with a touch of vengeance from Django. The reason this film surpasses the complaints of some is for the simple fact of the performances themselves. You have Foxx as a believable husband looking for his wife, Dicaprio as a brillant and scary villain. When he yells, "I can do what i want with my property," i had no doubt that every slave owner fully believed and embraced that hatred/passion for what they owned. Samuel Jackson is of course great, because you know, he's again in a Tarantino film. Not only are the performances by the main actors excellent, but it is the subtle touches Tarantino puts into the film that make it great. Consider, for example, a scene where the KKK will rise with their masks on. Instead of watching in horror as white men kill others for the sheer fact that they can, we laugh as they gripe about the size of their eye hole on their bags. As the group is near melt down and about to leave, the main slave owner has to bring focus back to the ungrateful group, all while a special cameo is made by a certain comedian. This is just one of several scenes that makes us laugh, when really, we should be in disbelief at what we know is certain to come. Anyway, watch the film with a discreet eye, but also a grateful one. We don't know how much longer Tarantino will be able to produce or direct films that are as special, unique and truly a gift to the world of film. Oh, and everyone, the D is silent. :)

Something's Wrong

Let me be clear about this blog: it is from my heart. i believe every word. And some that read it will be upset. With that said, let me begin by simply stating: Something is wrong with the American Church. This is not a newsflash or rocket science stuff, but i might as well be blunt and say it. Something is wrong with the American Church. Before i describe what is wrong, i beg your indulgence for a few moments.
FIrst, every one knows that every company, organization or government has an agenda when it comes to operating. Some call it "a vision statement" while others call it an "identity" for helping this entity "keep the main thing the main thing." However, for some reason, despite having God's ultimate power, the American Church has lost its identity and i will tell why momentarily.

Again, before looking at the American Church today, i want to just look at some government agencies and companies to prove my point that the American Church has lost its identity. When it comes to education in America, i think all will agree, the numbers don't add up and even the "real world" kids live in (one of technology) does not match up to what they learn at school (from books). There is a disconnect and kids aren't learning, that's what we know. How come schools aren't radically altered or more different ideas to learning tried? Because the agenda for public education is no longer about learning. What's it about? It's about money and power. It's about keeping students in a dependent state while an agenda is taught to them for more than 12 years. It doesn't take much to see this, just go to a school. Kids disinterested, sleeping, socializing, etc. They aren't learning, so there is only one thing education is now about: money and power over the lives of others.

Another example of our fine government and its agenda would be our transportation system. We have high "gas taxes" and yet we always have bumpy roads. When we go to DMV, there is always one or two checkers with no one else in sight. When we drive through road construction, there is always one guy working, two "flaggers" standing with the STOP sign, and the rest of the crew standing around talking. They aren't "fixing" the road like a private contractor with a deadline and reputation at stake would. No, they are just there. We can all agree, the agenda about transportation is not about making our lives easier. No, it is agenda that has money and control written all over it. Why else would we have such ridiculous fees for the smallest permits that involve our vehicles? It's about money and control.
I can name numerous other government functions, with Health Care being the next big thing that everyone knows deep down is about controlling Life and Death. It will not be about saving or helping people.

In contrast to those government agencies, there is APPLE. A company that has a clear vision: Making things simple and innovation to make phones/communication/computers more easy on our work flow. This company is now worth more than gas/oil because they keep the main thing the main thing: make portable/flexible items that enhance an individuals work flow. That's it. On top of that, keep the service flowing, the products top notch and the employees excited about their jobs.

These companies and entities gives us the perfect example to compare and contrast the current American Church, and the results and what i'm about to say are not good: The American Church is not about Jesus Christ. I don't think the current church is about money, but i do know, it is not about Christ. We seem to have lost the main thing--Christ. I know that the church is not about CHrist for the simple reason, if it were about Christ, lives would be changed, cultured would be engaged and people would be talking about Christ. I know this because we read it in all of the Gospels and especially the book of Acts. In Acts, we see the apostles, men of little education, transforming literal cities and lives because they kept the "main thing the main thing." Yes, there was the Pentecost, but what these men did was more simple: they preached Christ and repentence while serving others! These men led the charge when it came to Christ changing one's life. Look at 2:38, 3:19, 4:31. These men had no college (which America has plenty of), no marketing skills (which America has plenty of) and no technology which gives users instant access to information (which America has plenty of). These guys, compared with America currently, should have been wiped out if we were to start a church. Instead, many churches look back at this time and sigh, stupefied that God hasn't done something like this for many years. I guess i'm baffled as to why God would do something this great in our generation. Why would He when we have the same divorce rate as unbelievers? Why push for change when "cohabitation" among "Christians" is the same as that of unbelievers? Why yearn for people to turn from their sin when church attendance is declining among all demographics? We have folks in the church that act the same or even worst than unbelievers. Are you kidding me? And we seem to tolerate it. Acts 5 reveals what happens when sin was nearly brought into the church...death was the result. God doesn't tolerate hearts of fake, apathetic "love," which is scary when we think about what the American Church is today. While these are scary numbers, stats, thoughts, etc. what is worst is our response to them: we market, "finding out where they are at," etc. as the means to help change these stats (and i just read these articles today). WOW. Is it me or is that crazy? How about rereading the Gospels and Acts and literally look at Jesus "walking among the people" or the apostles doing the same thing, preaching for "repentence of sins." Our priorities have literally been changed. I will come out and say it: Satan doesn't need to show up in the American Church today. Why would he need to? We fight among ourselves and have no strategy for engaging the lost. We have lost the "main thing: preaching the repentance of sins and actually serving others."
Again, i'm not going to come out and say what our current identity as a church is, but i do know what it is not: it is not about Jesus Christ. We haven't seen this many people come to Christ in years and we have our own issues within the church, mainly unbelievers pretending to be believers. And since repentence (turning one way and going the other in regards to your sin) is not preached in many churches if at all, it is no wonder we have lost our effectiveness.

Francis once said, "The church is a whore, but she is my mother." This is an adequate statement. The American Church is lost, floundering and no one seems to know what to do about it. HELLO, something IS wrong.



























-to god be the glory for great things he has done!